[soVeryTired]

I don't mean to be harsh, but it's hard to see how your article is publishable in its current form.

An academic paper is a kind of conversation between experts. You need to describe the problem you're exploring, state what others have done in the area, and finally explain how you are contributing to the problem and show that your contribution is novel.

What you're writing about reads like a combination of philosophy and machine learning. The philosophy probably makes it unsuitable for a machine learning publication. I can't really speak for the academic philosophy side because I don't know the publication conventions there.

If you want to take this further, your first steps should be to identify the conversation you want to be a part of, and get to know the current landscape of that conversation (I'm mixing metaphors, but you know what I mean).

[freeradical13]

That's not harsh, it's realistic; thanks.

The conversation is probably mostly a part of the field of Positive Psychology and Meaning in Work literature, a summary of which I cite (Martela and Steger); however, when researching the field (I probably read about 50 academic articles), I didn't see any discussion about value theory (in the realm of philosophy). I have a connection to one of the researchers and maybe I can reach out to start the conversation.

[soVeryTired]

Yes, I'd reach out to someone who is already in the field to see whether your ideas could be of interest.

[schizoidboy]

Thanks, I've added an existing research section and will reach out to researchers in the field for more feedback.