Boywithhalo

8 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by Boywithhalo 5y ago

   Didn't mean to imply it was a disaster; but without being familiar with your work the main signal in your comment was that your supervisors didn't push for publishing it, which might be a hint it's not a good fit for arXiv ei
2. 2.▲
   by Boywithhalo 5y ago

   "arXiv moderators expect submissions to be of scholarly archival interest to the communities they represent. A submission may be declined if the moderators determine it lacks originality, novelty, or significance. Submissions that do n
3. 3.▲
   by Boywithhalo 5y ago

   I agree that h-index isn't very indicative, but max citations seems like a poor alternative. There is a relation between citations and certain aspects of research quality, but citation count can be easily gamed, and is affected by many
4. 4.▲
   by Boywithhalo 5y ago

   You're ascribing conclusions to me that I didn't draw; its the Capgemini report that states it was Huawei. I'm just the messenger.
5. 5.▲
   by Boywithhalo 5y ago

   Who is the 'they' in your comment? The Capgemini report underlying all this, in no unclear terms, states that Huawei abused their access; with unmonitored and unauthorized access from China. Additionally, it concludes that Dutch t
6. 6.▲
   by Boywithhalo 5y ago

   Capgemini report states that unchecked and unauthorized from China happened after October 28 2009; as reported by the journalist that broke this news: https://twitter.com/huibmodderkolk/status/138335058865459200...