As a self-defined tinkerer, I have tried the transition to a peer-review recognised researcher. It is very hard. Science is a very harsh mistress, and what you want your work to be saying is quite distinct from strong tests into what it actually says.
The game-like qualities of surviving peer-review are just that: a set of pretty arbitrary hurdles to cross. If you work in a narrow enough field, your set of blind review peers is tiny and their critique, even if masked, can seem very personal at times. I don't like that much.
I don't overall judge my attempt a success. I think this is an endevour best started early. Late stage career, trying to demonstrate you understand the rules of science, is hard.
The game-like qualities of surviving peer-review are just that: a set of pretty arbitrary hurdles to cross. If you work in a narrow enough field, your set of blind review peers is tiny and their critique, even if masked, can seem very personal at times. I don't like that much.
I don't overall judge my attempt a success. I think this is an endevour best started early. Late stage career, trying to demonstrate you understand the rules of science, is hard.