[CyberFonic]

A couple of points:

1. Even experienced academics / researchers have difficulty in getting published. Especially if their discovery contradicts any widely accepted theories.

2. How do you know that yours is a breakthrough discovery? Have you read up on all the publications in the relevant field(s)?

3. As a general rule, anything you write for publication needs to cite the relevant existing knowledge and then show how your contribution builds upon that, extends it, etc.

I assume that announcing your discovery is time-critical. Then I would suggest that you setup a website, that you own and control. Publish the material on that site. Doing so establishes that time of release and the facts. Then you could push your material to http://arxiv.org - that might require some seeking out of connections, but you have protected yourself by publishing on your website. Finally, submit to Hacker News, Reddit, etc so that the "news" gets picked up.

If your discovery is a breakthrough you will generate some interest. Of course, be prepared for the trolls and all those who are protecting the status-quo.

[dalke]

Hmm. I've seen that it's pretty easy to get published. What's difficult for experienced academics / researchers is that they want to get published in journals with a high prestige rate. This is used as a proxy for one's "impact" on the field, with effects on one's standing in a department, pay grade, career advancement, etc.

Other than that quibble, I agree with your points.

[CyberFonic]

As you say in your reply to the question, there are many journals who will publish almost anything just to get paid. We have all heard about the gibberish papers that get publish in Nature, etc.

Even for the average joe, publishing their findings in such a journal will very likely trigger the "crank" flag and thus erode any credibility.

[dalke]

You're right. I was thinking more about priority, and forgot the original question also included "taken seriously."