Word Document Template This sample paper from our Proceedings editor, Dr. Cynthia Whitney, uses the format required for NPA conference papers. Please download it and fill in your paper's content. Download here.

Format Word Document Styles This document contains all the styles needed for papers submitted to NPA conferences. Download here.

Help Us with Commenting on Other's Papers

• Does the paper have a strong abstract? Essential for any sort of mainstream or independent science attention, the abstract should be a one paragraph synopsis of the paper, not a detailed argument. Ideally the abstract will convince a reader to delve into an interesting paper. Does the abstract grab the reader’s attention? Does it display the author’s command of language and the subject? Does it adequately cover all the paper’s material without getting mired in detail?
  
  
• Does it have a strong conclusion? After the abstract, the conclusion is the most read part of a paper. Like the abstract, the conclusion should summarize key points and motivate the reader to finish the rest of the paper. Obvious though its points may be to an author, the conclusion should never be left to the imagination of the reader. Does the conclusion capture the essence of the paper? Does it make unsupported claims? Does it give the paper a sense of completion?
  
  
• Does it have a strong introduction? The introduction should indicate where the author plans to take the reader. If the abstract states what the paper will discuss, the introduction should focus on how the argument will flow and why it’s important, thus preparing the reader for what lies ahead. An introduction may pose an important question or state a problem to be solved. Does the introduction clearly articulate the main problem or question to be answered? Or does it just jump into the material without motivation?
  
  
• Does it tell a coherent story? Does Point A lead to Point B, thence to Point C, and so on? If not, how could the author connect the dots better? Does the paper contain hidden assumptions or leaps in logic? Does it ramble? If so, how could the author improve overall flow?
  
  
• Does it contain appropriate references? References show that the author is familiar with the material and with what others say about it. An author may certainly reference his/her previous work, but should also include references to recognized authorities, even if the authority is wrong. For example, a paper critical of Relativity that doesn’t reference any of Einstein's original works is less credible. A textbook serves as an acceptable reference for common derivations, but does not replace references to original works. Does the paper mention ideas without support? (I.e. somebody said ... ) Or without a specific citation? (Einstein said ...) Are they complete and formatted properly? Are they properly cited at the end of the paper? Do all the links work? Most mainstream scientists automatically dismiss any work lacking appropriate references.
  
  
• Does it demonstrate a command of the English language? Does the paper contain spelling or grammatical errors? Is it wordy or awkward in places? Are certain phrases overused? NPA-17 papers are written in English because the majority of its readers converse in English. Non-native English speakers generally appreciate help improving their word flow. Often non-native English writers find it difficult to know when to use articles and when not. For example, “the relativity” sounds funny to a native, but natural to a non-native. Let's correct the nuances.
  
  
• Is it easy to categorize as theoretical, experimental, philosophical, or speculative? After finishing a paper, the reader should easily determine its category, ideally in agreement with the author. Different categories demand different requirements.
  
  
• Theoretical papers should follow a logical and/or mathematical progression. Mathematics is the language of physics. Use it to your advantage. Harsh as it may seem, theoretical papers will gain no traction in the mainstream or independent science communities without mathematical support, whether or not the theories they present are new or original. Don’t be fooled. Papers lacking mathematical support are speculative or philosophical at best, not rigorously theoretical. Do the equations in the paper progress naturally and logically? Are they numbered and referenced appropriately? Are all variables clearly identified? Are the calculations and units correct?
  
  
• Experimental papers should detail who, what, when, where, how and why. These papers may be primary (the author actually performed the experiment) or secondary (he/she reevaluates or reinterprets another experiment). If primary, does it describe the apparatus, equations, expected results, and actual results? Does it interpret the findings and discuss implications or leave that to the reader? If appropriate, does it analyze the results quantitatively and statistically? Does it relate the experiment to other similar experiments - both mainstream and independent? If secondary, does it provide motivation for a reanalysis? Does it discuss (or at least reference) other similar re-evaluative works, or the implications of his/her new findings?
  
  
• Philosophical papers should state unambiguous assumptions and follow a logical progression. A philosophical paper may lay a foundation to launch more rigorous theoretical explorations, but should never pretend to be a “theory of everything” without strong mathematical support. Are the assumptions clearly stated? Do they make sense? Are they testable? Is the topic appropriate for philosophical discussion? Do the conclusions follow? Does the paper reference similar arguments?
  
  
• Speculative papers are that - exercises in speculation. Yes, speculative papers are OK, provided they modestly identify themselves as such. They ask the question, what if? Generally speculative papers include untestable assumptions, lack strong mathematical support or even a coherent logical argument, and are thus least likely to receive serious attention. On the plus side, they push the envelopes, though at some point speculative material must find its way into other areas (e.g. theoretical, experimental or philosophical).
  

NPA General Submission Guildlines

• The NPA charges a $10 per page fee for conference papers, to help pay for printing the conference book and for editing of the final proceedings.


• Papers must be submitted electronically in either Word or PDF format, using the required template.


• Papers must follow the content guidelines below as specified by the NPA Content Committee.


• Final drafts must be submitted 30 days prior to the conference. This insures timely printing of the conference papers book.


• Conference fees must be paid 30 days prior to the conference. Fees are also required for papers in absentia.

NPA Content Submission Guildelines

• Papers should adhere to accepted standards for scientific works, including an abstract, introduction, definitions, body, conclusion, references, and acknowledgements.


• Papers should be written in grammatically correct English.


• Abstracts should not exceed 300 words. Further development belongs in the body of the paper.


• Papers should include a Definitions section containing postulates, assumptions, variables, and/or parameters, numbered 1, 2, 3, etc.


• Conclusions should discuss the practical value of each paper's ideas. What new technologies, conventions or concepts does it bring to the world?


• Topics may include all types of sciences related to physics, cosmology, scientific philosophy, and applied mathematics.


• Topics may not include spiritualism, para-normal, psychology, UFOs, or religion. This does not exclude anyone with particular beliefs in these areas from submitting papers. This only means that the main thrust of a paper cannot involve these subjects, even if motivated by them.


• New works must be substantially different from previous works submitted to the NPA. Continuation or progress reports are welcome if they present new and interesting findings to previously presented work.