If you think this is very bad question and it has no place here, please, tell me here and I will delete it. I asked similar question 2 days ago but there I wrote too many comments and decided to continue the discussion on other question rather than just trolling it. So, please, give me advice should I delete this question or leave it be as it is.

I'm not 100% sure what you're asking. Are you talking about fully 'baked' papers that are (or soon to be) undergoing review, or just some random ideas you wake up with in the morning?

I am talking about 2 possibilities here-a "small book" sized "thesis"-150-180pages with full references either at the end or after each section, therefore a single PDF showing all I have done through the years or a serious of 7-8 papers in every science I can add something using my method (each "standard" size-5-7 pages) citing each other out with a single one (leading the way) which isn't in any particular field but underlies the method used in all the others. This single 1 is the BIG problem-it can't be specified in any science or even philosophy as far as I know but I can't without it

The problem you have is 'trust'; i.e., whether other people 'trust' that your work is correct. Journals/conferences through their review process provide some form of 'trust'; the more prestigious a venue is, the more trust one have. Though, it is never 100% trust. What about outside journals/conferences? Ans: the authors' reputation. I follow a few key people's work, where they post yet to be published papers on their web-site or ArXiv. I will read their unpublished work but for others, depends ...

I don't know about this edit @David Ketcheson because I haven't tried all the journals I could potentially try. There is still some hope left. I am just trying to make the point if my research is rejected by the ones remaining what could I do? But, yes, you have the point here-I am still learning how to ask proper questions. Yet, I believe this caption is misleading as it is now so I will try to change it.

Now it is more like my question. It isn't a 100% match but it isn't misleading, too. I think this caption can state my question well enough and if somebody misinterprets it I will come and explain my motivation behind it.

So, er, your work has technical problems but you want to publish it anyway, rather than fix the problems? That's a serious issue.

I have not technical issues. The only issues remaining is where can I submit it. Depending on the particular specialization of the journal I can pick one or the other problems I have been working on but the thing is I need a place which can accept my core postulates-they are what is bridging the gap between philosophy and science and is so difficult to wrap your mind around. If any journal can accept those cores this is the right place to go. But without the core there is no reasoning behind my results.

But you said yourself that some of the rejections were for technical reasons. So they were not all due to the scope.

@KonradRudolph Possibly, but that still does not justify the comments by the OP that the main issue is due to scope (I am not really sure what technicalities one could get a paper completely rejected for rather than just being asked to resubmit).

There is no substitute for publishing in high impact peer review journals. Although some good papers were rejected for various reasons, and some of them even won a nobel prize, the papers were eventually published.

@TobiasKildetoft: "I am not really sure what technicalities one could get a paper completely rejected" - maybe the technicality that it's a "'small book' sized 'thesis'-150-180pages" instead of the typical paper length of some 10 to 30 pages, and that it "isn't in any particular field"?

I have edited my question now. Do you think it is better that way or should I delete my clarifications?

What puzzles me a bit is the fact that there are numerous journals on all kinds of "complexity" and they come in a variety of scopes, so a work that has "complexity" of any kind at its core should find a fitting venue. Also, there are journals with a very general scope, e.g. PLOS ONE (which also has a fast review cycle).

I didn't say I have tried them all. I just say I want to know can it be done. There are still places where I can try it, The big problem isn't as much the issue its the way I work it out-by going on the "bridge" between science and philosophy you pretty easy go beyond what most mathematically oriented journals consider their field. The moment you start forming new paradigms and making postulates people start feeling it isn't the same "taste" any more.

I recommend that you edit your question to be shorter and to focus specifically on whether it would make things worse. No one can guarantee that it would help. But you need to find out whether it would make things worse. That is an important question.

To answer the question in your first paragraph: YES! Do publish your work to arXiv and disseminate it on social media. This is routinely done in many disciplines, and is in fact the main route of dissemination in some. The people who answered (or upvoted the answers) probably don’t use social media much, so they obviously don’t see the system at work. But I can assure you that, for scientists who do use social media (mainly Twitter), this is effective.

I'm starting to think should I delete this question. It is only showing how little I know how the community works and how far away I'm from everybody else as far as understanding how information dissemination works in science these days. I'm even starting to doubt was it asking this question the right thing to do in the first place. The way I've written it only shows how little I know about the process of scientific publication. I just can't explain it how it got so popular. I thought nobody would answer it. But the attention it got makes me wonder what to do-to delete it or to let it stay?

@Dirk , they want $2900 for publication. I can't spare the cash! It is out of question. I better risk with Mendeley or the arXiv or plain facebook. My problem is I'm now too far from the community, radical ideas no one has ever seen, no association with any institution, out of scope for any of the "regular" journals, not enough money and oh, yes, no previous experience! Can you now understand why I ask about the social media and can it go viral on the Internet instead of just relying on the "regular" path?

Go ahead, upload it on dropbox or wherever and link to it from e.g the facebook group "cybernetics and systems science" or some complexity forum. Make your own blog on tumblr and start writing. It is true that your situation is unusual, but you are like any other student in that the skills of writing, discussing and networking do not come without practice.