I just received an email from Peerus “letting me know” that my paper was published. While it sells itself as a paper monitoring app, better than google scholar, it does seem to be closer to academia.edu.

I do find deceptive in their email the large orange button with Find your papers on peerus followed in small by by clicking you accept our TCU.

Also I don’t understand how they want to monetize their product. The website claims to be free (for researchers) but does not give any additional information.

So does someone has experience with their service? How do they compare with google scholar / academia.edu (which seems to have a bad rep as seen in this question Is Academia.edu useful?)?

I am in a very frustrating situation. My article is under review for almost 8 months and I didn’t hear any response. The average review time for the journal is 3 months. The journal is highly reputed journal, and based on the average time one can expect a response within 2.5 to 4.5 months.
I sent several emails to Editor in Chief (EiC) but I receive same answer, a kind of auto response. Moreover, according to journal policy I can not know the name or contact information of Associate Editor (AE).
The EiC is with me on various social media plateforms like Linkedin and facebook. We had few conversations on various topics, but I never told him about my article.
The question is can I discuss status of my article with EiC on social media in informal text messaging?
Is it ethical and fair? I want to expatiate the review process to same level as journal average time shows. I don’t want to get an unfair advantage.

Is there a way that we can compare the two social network graphs?
Some previous researches were done by qualitative methods, but I wish to measure the gap by quantitative method.
I have searched for that comparison and there are two ways GCD and NetDis.
However, those are not supported on Gephi based on my search and understanding.

If you know any technique, please let me know.

The website Kudos offers a service whereby researchers can set up a profile, choose their publications from a database and add a short summary of their content (not the original abstract). How effective is

  • setting up a profile with Kudos
  • adding summaries to one’s publications

in terms of making one’s research better known? Is there any evidence to suggest that it’s worth the time?

I have a question related to Reasearch Gate and citation count.

My co-authors have uploaded some conference papers in which I was author too. I decide to create a profile in RG and when I do I realize that the citations from those papers do not added in my profile. In Stats section in RG i can see the Reads but the Citations is — (i.e. 0).

Does anyone know the reason and if it is possible to fix this?

Thanks in advance.

Now this is something that happened long ago and even after so long, in a way begs for an answer, so I thought that I might ask here.

This happened to someone who was in another department of my university, H. He had taken an entry level position (a trainee, eventually moving onto a grad assistant) in a lab. In all his time there, he was heavily bullied by a senior phD student B.

Apparently, H via a slip of tongue had made his future career aspirations known to B’s advisor, K. Now, K felt that H’s career choices were against their personal beliefs. This lead them (K) to try and bully H out of the place completely. They did everything in their power to brand H an outsider and an unwanted presence, scrutinizing everything from their quality of work to H’s appearance and diet (yes diet, turns out when people get desperate to smear someone they’ll literally say anything ). H’s advisor L was pretty close with K, but K held a lot of pull in the department and hence was able to continue this. He made sure that H was assigned either nonsensical problems (which H still diligently followed through, much to the chagrin of everyone else) and also made sure that he would not be allowed to do any of it; in hopes that he would be driven away.

B was a phD student co-mentored by K and L. B would also sit right behind H and made it his priority of the day that H would not get to do any work no matter what (he would also encourage others to do the same, in fact many joined in). How he managed to keep up with his research and bully someone is beyond me. Though there were rumors that he had to be shifted to another location in the lab because he had become (almost) obsessed with H to the point that he was abandoning his own work.

It was said that H was pretty good at what he did and in the face of all the problems he was given (that no one wanted), he did the best he could and completed them, finally submitting all his findings before leaving. B was apparently frustrated with his own progress and was seemingly under-performing too, this might have lead to him to bully H ( due to the jealousy of seeing a younger member of the lab getting something done when one is barely eking out anything ). Apparently he (B) had been reprimanded before once for slacking off.

I think the harassment also escalated because H was not allowed to speak up, and when he did try to in any way, he was immediately silenced and reprimanded for doing so. In the end, whatever incident may have caused him to speak up was blamed on him. This was only found much later, before that, H was blamed for many transgressions (when they were forced upon him by someone else).

H may have needed the position, since he did whatever was required to get his work done and stuck through. Ironically, in the end he was blamed for a lot of everything due to his “lack of speaking up” (when he was being secretly reprimanded whenever he did so).

For the sake of brevity, I’ll not include the massive drama that followed, including K using every inch of his power to put H down, H clashing with another member of the lab and finally, a new hire being pitted against H. In the end, H left, but I wonder even now, what should have been done in this case?

Some of the other grad students in that department whom I spoke to gave off the vibe that they did in a way side with H, but were too scared to take a stand with him because they did not want to go against K and hence ended up saying nothing or simply joining in against H. It was either him or them. K had also gotten one of the administrative assistant’s in the lab to smear him across the department and spread all kinds of rumors about him, so by the time H had left, mostly everyone hated him. It was actually strange because most of them knew the truth but spited H nevertheless (to protect themselves). B also had a habit of bringing people to sit behind H and then badmouth him (basically anything, did not even have to be true), this was only one of the few things he did. This was a common occurrence. B got away with it in the end. He was able to pull this off because of another highly corrupt grad student.

I did come to hear that B and the other grad students actually bragged about how they would try to mess with H’s sanity ( by trying to make him belive that he was doing shitty work when he was not, I’m using the word trying here because H eventually completed his task and something like this would be pretty childish so I would wonder if something like that would actually work ) and how easily they could get away with it. Although many cannot (read would not) admit it openly, it is pretty henious the way B made personal ( and very out of line ) attacks to H’s character this way. Strangely, even though H is gone now, they (corrupt grad students present there now) still brag about how they mess with H even though he is far away (not sure about the exact details, but I think this has something to do with spreading rumors) and how easy it is to do so.

All these incidents had become part of the daily gossip at our university as K pipped all of this as ‘entertainment’ created by him. Because H was known to not participate in any of the bullying, other students caught wind of this whole deal (due to the aforementioned rumors) and would try and bully H the same way it was being done in the lab. People did it because they found the effect comedic.

What should people have done when the bullying had become this bad? H did eventually end up leaving, but the perpetrators also got away with it scot free (last I heard the grad students got jobs and moved away and B is still completing his PhD.. ). So what could have the higher ups have done to contain this? Is it really okay to let B and the other grad students get away like this?

Inspite of so many leaps in progress in building a better academia, what is our system still lacking to handle such cases of bullying?

I am involved in a project team to build a decentralized tool for researchers to share and peer-evaluate their findings, without any intervention of third party intermediaries (publishers, journals, presses, …).

The team aims to work as a non-profit foundation, and the service (or the platform) of course is gonna be open-sourced free software. The problem is, in building the designs and specifications of the tool, we need opinions from the academics.

So here is the question. Where on the Internet can I find active discussions and opinions from researchers?
(I’ve been told often that many researchers use Twitter, but if that is the case how may I reach them? Does it work like hashtagging #ScholComm, #SciComm, or #Researcher?)

PS. for those who’re interested in what the project is, please message me… or am I permitted to link it here?