For nearly 10 years I have been trying to have some historical theories evaluated. If they are correct, they would be significant discoveries. I do not want to just post them online since they would likely be lost on the web, plus I do not want to spread pseudoscience or just give someone else the idea who then claims the credit. Unfortunately for me as well, some of them involve subjects usually considered taboo by many academic authorities (i.e., historical antecedents for various Greek, Biblical, and Medieval myths). When I contact history departments at universities, I am given the cold shoulder since I am an independent investigator (mind you, this is before I even mention the nature of my theories). I have therefore done my best as an amateur to write up my theories in an academic fashion and submit them to academic journals. They repeatedly get sent to peer review, so I feel the editors agree they must have some merit. However, the peer reviewers keep shooting me down over presentation errors (wanting original texts rather than texts in translation, wanting phrasing adjusted, wanting counterpoint discussions on modern opinions on some of these subjects despite being beyond the article word limits, etc.). Often one reviewer will contradict the others in their demands. I am sure I am making many amateur mistakes in presentation, because I am an amateur. I fix the problems and resubmit to a new journal. More months go by. Slowly the papers become more polished, but I feel there must be a better way than this. Collaboration or direct professional advice would prevent many of these amateur mistakes, anticipate reviewer concerns, or even identify ideal journals or forums for presenting these ideas. Conversely, some reviewers have remarked very positively on my theories but instead of recommending article publication have instead recommended I pursue an academic book or a monograph as they feel the article format is too confining to properly elaborate on some of my arguments and theses. I do not have the credentials to do this. As a result, my manuscripts gather dust on shelves. Finally, a recent manuscript was nearly accepted after 18 months of peer review by multiple reviewers with recommendations for a couple of changes to references, but I do not have access to the references they recommend since I am an independent investigator. So am stuck in a Catch-22: I cannot publish without credibility, but I cannot get credibility without being published. What is there to be done? Thank you for any suggestions.