
Ask HN: Is PhD mandatory for getting into research? - itsmefaz
Is it possible for one to get involved in doing research without sufficient academic background?<p>And how difficult is getting the papers submitted to top conferences without good academic backing. And have people been able to do it? Some examples would be helpful.
======
impendia
Speaking as a mathematics professor --

In my opinion, it's like asking "Can I become a concert pianist without taking
piano lessons?" Well, sure; indeed, it's been done before.

But if you're going to put in the hard work, why not enroll in a Ph.D.
program? They're designed _precisely_ to train you to become an effective
researcher. And they often offer funding.

Earning a PhD is hard. Becoming a strong researcher outside of a PhD program
is _even harder_.

If you want to put in the necessary effort, then absent unusual circumstances
I'd recommend earning a PhD. All sorts of infrastructure is in place to help
you succeed.

------
ajaviaad
One must be proficient in research methodologies including qualitative and
quantitative techniques. Research should also bring out something new so that
other researchers could further explore findings of that research paper. If
research is substantive it can find place in research journals. I have not
done PhD but got my work published in research journals. You can also publish
your work open source using SSRN, Research Gate and Academia (dot) edu.

~~~
itsmefaz
Can you suggest me resources on research methodologies? And how did you get
started? And how long did it take you to get your first paper published?

~~~
ajaviaad
You can find good resources on American Library Association website. It
provides material on statistical methodologies, research writing and many
other useful things there. It took me one year to produce first paper and
initially I published open source through SSRN. You can submit your paper to
various reputed journals on SSRN.

------
CyberFonic
In theory it should be possible, in practice it is rare. At most top
conferences industry track papers are somewhat more likely to be accepted from
non-academic contributors.

The following is based on my decades of industry experience as well as
recently completing a PhD in software engineering.

PhD candidates are effectively doing an apprenticeship to become proficient
academic researchers. It takes smart, determined individuals anything from 3
to 10 years to graduate with a PhD. Over half who start drop out. Most
candidates have one or more supervisors who guide, mentor and co-author
papers.

Academic papers need to reference prior work. In most areas the credible
references are mostly behind pay-walled repositories for which you either have
to pay thousands to access or use your academic institutions access to them.
The raises two issues: Firstly, if you are not up to speed with the state-of-
the-art, then you can't tell whether your research is yielding paper worthy
results. Secondly, you lack suitable referencing of prior-work.

All academically credible journals and conferences have a peer review process.
Even experienced researchers get more rejections than acceptances. The big
secret is that you need to cite "the right papers" in your background / prior-
work section, in order for reviewers to take your submission seriously. It has
been said that some reviewers flick to the biblio and if their papers are
cited then they are more in favour of an accept decision.

Since you are asking your question on HN, perhaps you already are a member of
IEEE or ACM. As a minimum you could peruse some of their publications or even
attend a conference in an area that is of interest to you. That will give you
a far clearer picture of the standard and areas of current research. Of
course, such conferences are an excellent networking opportunity which will
allow you to ask your question of people who are currently active in your
field of interest.

~~~
dcolkitt
> In most areas the credible references are mostly behind pay-walled
> repositories for which you either have to pay thousands to access or use
> your academic institutions access to them.

Very informative post. But I just want to point out that the specific excerpt
above is largely no longer true thanks to SciHub.

~~~
CyberFonic
Thanks for pointing out SciHub. I never needed to use it because I had good
access via my academic institute's eLibrary.

Out of curiosity I looked up some key papers in my area of MBSE and was able
to find them on SciHub. In my mind that amply demonstrates that a non-academic
researcher should be able to access many of the recent significant work in at
least that area.

------
seanwilson
Which research area? Some are going to be easier than others depending on the
resources, theoretical background required, community access you need,
competition etc.

I would look up papers in the field that are in the niche you want to write
about and consider if it's realistic you could write something of similar
quality. Writing well (which might include writing rigorous proofs), knowing
about related work and putting your work in the context of past research is
essential to getting published.

Also, why do you want to publish papers? Why top conferences? Why not write an
article about your work or release it as software? There's other ways to let
people know about any new ground you've broken.

~~~
itsmefaz
I'm thinking about doing research in areas like ML, AI, Mathematics. However,
I like your idea about writing software rather than publishing papers, the
impact would be visible clearly!

Let me know if you have any other suggestions.

~~~
seanwilson
What made you ask about writing papers I mean? To look good on your resume? To
land a job in that field? Depending on your goals, a blog post or a youtube
video might be a better use of time for example.

~~~
itsmefaz
1\. To develop expertise

2\. To create evidence of learning

3\. To create credibility as an expertise both inside/outside the field

4\. To monetise expertise through consulting and other works

5\. To be able to write books

6\. If possible to discover and invent something that would be worth millions

This is how I'm thinking? Maybe you can help me straightened my thought
process a bit!

~~~
impendia
You mentioned mathematics. I am a math professor. Thinking about the most
successful researchers I know, here is the list of major reasons they do it:

1\. Because they love their subject area, and are excited about doing this
work for its own sake.

That's the entire list.

If you're competing with that (and you mentioned _top_ conferences, so rest
assured you would be), then ulterior motives are only going to take you so
far. Research consists of bashing a brick with your head for two years, and
then being excited when it _finally_ moves half an inch.

I _love_ research, and I _do_ recommend it, but I have to think that there are
easier ways to achieve your stated goals.

------
Rainymood
>Is it possible for one to get involved in doing research without sufficient
academic background?

Yes. For a single counterexample consider Simon Peyton Jones [1].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Peyton_Jones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Peyton_Jones)

