How would I be able to publish a peer reviewed scholarly work without a degree? Would several experts have to review my work or something?
>>874424
You can't circle jerk unless you're in the circle jerk. That's the way circle jerks operate.
>>874424
You could probably try but you'd have a hard time and I'm not sure how you'd do it. There used to be a lot of "open" peer-reviewed journals that would allow anyone to publish as long as it was decent enough. But as usual, people in the natural sciences couldn't handle this kind of democracy and in their autistic rage decided to fuck the whole concept of open journals after what's known as the Sokal affair.
I mean to publish works on history btw
>>874482
>But as usual, people in the natural sciences couldn't handle this kind of democracy and in their autistic rage decided to fuck the whole concept of open journals after what's known as the Sokal affair.
So basically since the open publishing is dead the entire academic journalistic system has to be completely beholden to whatever political climate is in a particular college all because some guy dilberetly went out of his way to embarrass and deceive one particular journal?
I, too, have wondered this. I am a merchant mariner. I'm away from home a lot, obviously, and the only things I really do when I'm not on watch are work out and read history. I took two years of history classes at Uni before transferring to the Academy and getting my credentials, so I'm at least somewhat trained in academic writing and shit.
I even wrote a letter to one of my favorite history profs a few months ago asking about this topic. He said sadly, many historians and whatnot are pretty elitist because they're technically liberal arts majors but they think they're better than that or something. He said if I ever wanted to publish anything, I should probably just do it anonymously or under a different name, then keep proof that I wrote it in case someone else tries to take credit.
That said, he writes me letters of recommendation quite often that often allows me to get into archives and libraries to see their old books and documents. Sometimes they still say no, but they often relinquish when I present them with recommendations from actual historians and show them I speak Latin and shit.
I'm currently working on a book about maritime history. Not sure if I'll ever finish or publish it, but it keeps me busy quite a bit.
>>874424
Don't even bother.
Just self publish.
No one will take you seriously because you need academic experience and basic understanding of historical methodology
just write popular history novels
>>875071
NOOOOOO!!!!!!
>>875071
>academic experience and basic understanding of historical methodology
Translation: pick a time period you're interested in, go and get a bunch of boring, dry primary sources from said period in question from the university press, and then try to piece those together and explain why they're important, how they affected each other, and what the ramifications were.
History is not nuclear physics. There is no "right" answer. The only thing that sets writing a history book apart from writing a novel is that one is based on supposed historical "fact."
Being a historian just means being a decent writer, and spending many, many, many hours pouring through documents, books, letters, etc.
You don't need a great deal of specific "training" to be an historian. As I said, it's not like there are equations to memorize, mathematical disciplines to master, etc. It's just about analyzing past events given the limited knowledge we have.
>>874424
>How would I be able to publish a peer reviewed scholarly work without a degree?
You submit a paper to a journal. Revise to meet criteria. Publish.
The problem is that without an appropriate doctoral degree you're going to have difficulty producing a paper that will be accepted on emendation.
