I agrre with you Michael

Michael John McAleer Thanks, very well explained.

To Saeed Ullah :

Thank you for your helpful and encouraging response.

May RG score live long, and be evergreen

To P. K. Karmakar :

Many thanks for your encouraging and infectious Answer.

To Ahmed Y. Yassin :

The pleasure is mine.

Many thanks for your positive and helpful Answer.

Thanks a lot for your quick response. Let the Public in the open RG forum analyze the second part of your "infectious" answer due to some unlimited issues beyond my limited capacity.

To P. K. Karmakar :

It is my pleasure.

You are perfectly correct because the "public" comprises all other academics with whom we interact.

Dear Prof. @ Michael John McAleer ,

You are really agreeable in this backdrop.

Kind regards,

PK Karmakar

Tezpur University, Tezpur, Assam (India)

To P. K. Karmakar :

I have 1,315 Answers (including this), and I am not sure you have read them all.

I am always agreeable when I am responding to what I see as sensible, encouraging and knowledgeable Answers.

If I take exception to anything in Q&A, I will respond accordingly, as should everyone else.

To state the obvious, we are all human, so we are prone to make mistakes of omission, commission and interpretation.

If professional courtesy and politeness are not transgressed, serious and pointed academic criticism should be encouraged.

As a physicist, I am sure you understand.

Thank.

Many thanks for this explanation.

Have a great day!

Thank you for sharing that with us!

To Samir M. Ismail :

The pleasure is mine.

Many thanks for your helpful and encouraging response.

To Firas Abdulrazzaq Raheem :

It is my pleasure.

Many thanks for your kind Answer.

I hope you will enjoy a relaxing day, and also the week-end.

To Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak :

It is a pleasure to share and exchange our thoughts with academic colleagues.

Thank you for your encouraging and kind Answer.

I agrre with you Michael

It seems to be more intense and interesting. I am going through all of your answers.

Kind regards.

To Slavoljub Hilčenko :

Many thanks for your encouraging, supportive and helpful answer.

Great minds think alike?

Or, at least, like minds think alike.

To P. K. Karmakar :

You are far too kind.

I appreciate and respect your positivity and optimism, which is reflected in your Answers to a number of different Questions.

Thank you for the simple, clear and unambiguous child's guide to calculating the RG score.

This should make it far easier for academics who might be interested in discussing any aspects of the RG score.

It also explains why the RG score can rise and fall, for anyone who might be interested.

To Chia-Lin Chang:

Many thanks for your carefully considered and instructive Answer.

If the Question is found to be informative, that would be very satisfying.

thanks for great insight about evaluating RG score..Dear Professor Michael...

To Abdul Rauf :

The pleasure is mine.

Many thanks for your reassuring and insightful Answer.

Dear Prof. Michael John McAleer

Thank you for the clarification,

still, to come weekly that I have done a great job with the weekly decrease in the score during years, Become amusing

To Houda Kawas :

It is my pleasure.

I am pleased that you find the weekly changes in the RG score over the years to be amusing, as it makes clear that the RG score can be entertaining as well as informative.

To Naushad Khan :

Many thanks for your detailed, thoughtful and considerate Answer.

I hasten to add that there is no guarantee that engaging in Q&A will increase the RG score, if that is what an academic would like, but academic exchange and interaction is its own reward.

If the RG score happens to increase, so be it.

To Naushad Khan :

You are too kind.

There are many academics on RG and elsewhere who deserve your generous and kind words far more than I.

To Naushad Khan :

I am pleased that engaging in RG activities such as Q&A is beneficial to learning, as it should be.

Thanks, RG score well explained. By the way how about the "Total Research Interest "

What is Research Interest?Research Interest is how we measure scientists' interest in your research.Metrics are a powerful tool to evaluate science and move it forward. When used well, metrics can help researchers and institutions understand how their research is being received and applied around the world. But deciding what constitutes a good metric is a complex issue. While no single metric can give you the full picture of the impact your research is having, we believe our new Research Interest score can help you complete the picture.At ResearchGate, we're committed to giving you insights into how people read, recommend, and cite your work. Millions of scientists interact every day with each other's work through our platform – creating a unique opportunity to offer a broad understanding of interest in their work. With the Research Interest score, we now have a quicker and more comprehensive way to do just that.How Research Interest scores are calculatedThrough our research and input from scientists, we decided to focus on how ResearchGate members are showing interest in individual research items and how that interest is evolving over time. We believe that this new score can give authors a faster, more comprehensive picture than citations or reads alone.We built the Research Interest score to be intuitive, so that researchers can quickly understand and use it in as many situations as possible. This score is focused on research items and scientists' interactions with them, using concepts that are familiar to our members. To provide an overview of a researcher's body of work, we've also added a total Research Interest score, which simply adds up the Research Interest scores from all of an author's research items on their profile.What the Research Interest score includesWhen researchers read, recommend or cite a research item, its Research Interest goes up. Based on our data and feedback from scientists, we chose to focus on these interactions to reflect the lifecycle of a scientist's increasing interest in a piece of research. First, a researcher accesses a research item. If it sounds of interest, they may read the full-text (if it is available). If they like what they read, they might recommend it. And if the work is really relevant, they might cite it in their own research.This is how we decided on a system for weighting the different forms of interaction:

• A read* has a weighting of 0.05.
• A full-text read* has a weighting of 0.15.
• A recommendation has a weighting of 0.25.
• A citation has a weighting of 0.5.

*A 'read' is when someone views a publication summary or clicks on a figure, whereas a 'full-text read' is counted when someone views or downloads the full-text. Learn more about how we count reads)What the Research Interest score doesn't includeTo make Research Interest scores meaningful to our members, we decided to exclude certain types of data:

• Reads by people who are not ResearchGate members By only measuring interest from scientists that have logged in to ResearchGate, we can provide the 'who' behind the metrics, a key part of understanding how an author's work is being received.
• Multiple reads and recommendations by a researcher in a single week A researcher interacting multiple times with the same research within a short period of time doesn't represent an increase in interest, but leaves the score more open to abuse.
• Interactions from bots, crawlers and other automated systems Our bot detection system is constantly monitoring abnormalities so that we can react quickly to any irrelevant or fraudulent activity. You can also send feedback to our support team if you suspect any unusual activity in your stats.

To Amila Abeynayaka :

It is my pleasure.

Many thanks for your painstakingly detailed Answer, and discussion of TRI.

TRI is more straightforward to understand and interpret than the RG score as the weights and components for TRI are stated clearly.

However, it is not stated, though it is presumed, that a weighted linear relationship is used to calculate TRI, in which case an algebraic formula is available.

This is in contrast to the RG score, where a computer-generated empirical weighted sum of all activities and interactions in RG is the algorithm used in its calculation, with no algebraic formula available..

Michael John McAleer thanks for the clarification.

To Amila Abeynayaka :

It is my pleasure.

However, I think you had the correct information in your detailed answer.

There have been many detailed and carefully considered Answers to this Question regarding the RG score, which is related to a number of interesting threads regarding the calculation, meaning, interpretation, and usefulness, among others, of the RG score.

The RG score is a computer-generated empirical weighted sum of all activities and interactions on RG, excepting Citations and the h-index.

It seems that the RG score depends heavily on Reads and Recommendations which, in turn, is heavily affected by Q&A.

Information on Citations, and hence also the h-index, is not used in calculating the RG score.

Many thanks dear Dr. Michael John McAleer for this helpful link.

This is very informative and interesting discussion indeed.

Interesting, helpful both.

To Olutosin Ademola Otekunrin :

It is my pleasure.

Thank you for your encouraging response.

I am glad you found it helpful.

To P. K. Karmakar :

Thank you for your thoughtful Answer.

I am pleased that you found the Question to be both interesting and helpful.

To Naushad Khan :

Thank you for your carefully considered Answers.

I agree that there are many challenging issues that might be raised in Q&A.

I would like to thank all the academics who have provided interesting and stimulating Answers to the Question.

I specially thank you, dear Dr MJ McAleer, for your interesting inputs

To P.K. Karmakar:

I wish to thank you for your encouraging and always positive attitude.

It's my simple and humble pleasure to stay connected with you all

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

Admitted as said

Nice to know

To P.K. Karmakar:

The pleasure is ours.

To Naushad Khan :

Thank you for your encouraging and supportive thoughts and words, which are much appreciated, as can be seen by the Recommendations.

I like it

👍🏽

To P.K. Karmakar:

So does everyone else who reads your Answers.

🙏 THANKS 🙏

To P.K. Karmakar:

My pleasure.

Just stating fact.

To Naushad Khan :

Thank you for the useful and helpful analysis.

Very good Michael John McAleer

Regards

Really

To Naushad Khan :

Many thanks for your continuing interest and active participation.

To Leônidas Luiz Volcato Descovi Filho :

Many thanks for your friendly and encouraging Answer.

To P.K. Karmakar:

Thank you for your supportive and realistic interest and encouragement.

To Naushad Khan :

Many thanks for your interesting and continuing participation in RG activities.

The numerical value of the RG score seems to be of interest to some academics, and not of much interest to others.

The RG score is a measure of academic activity and interactions, primarily through Q&A.

Q&A leads to Reads and Recommendations which, in turn, affect the RG score.

Interactions and exchanges with academics from a wide range of disciplines is the immediate and lasting benefit from participating in RG activities.

To Chia-Lin Chang:

Many thanks for your expert analysis on the numerical value of the RG score, and the primary benefits from engaging in academic social activity on RG.

To Naushad Khan :

Many thanks for your irrepressible Answers.

May good time continue

To P.K. Karmakar:

Good times will continue as long as you continue to contribute to Q&A.

To Naushad Khan :

I am pleased to hear that your participation in RG activities has led to a number of favourable outcomes.

May it continue.

It's true, great, and largely useful

To P.K. Karmakar:

We seem to be in agreement on this issue.

May it continue.

It's my immense pleasure to remain in continuation forward

The feeling is mutual.

"To Infinity and Beyond !"

Buzz Lightyear

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_Lightyear

Buzz Lightyear would have had no problems in sorting out the algorithm for calculating the RG score.

To Chia-Lin Chang:

Many thanks for continuing the line of thinking about how non-academics might be able to understand the algorithm for calculating the RG score.

To Naushad Khan :

The Question is not about how to increase the RG score, but how to calculate it.

Dear Michael John McAleer:

I agree that my reference to Buzz Lightyear was in the context of understanding the algorithm for calculating the RG score, and not how to increase it, which does not interest me in the slightest.

To Chia-Lin Chang:

Many thanks for your favourable and agreeable Answer regarding how fictional characters might be able to understand the algorithm for calculating the RG score, though I doubt they would have any interest in its numerical value.

Great interactions, interesting

To P.K. Karmakar:

Many thanks for your interesting interactions in Q&A.

For purposes of calculating the RG score, with regard to the definition of items in an academic's RG profile, does the algorithm refer to "published articles" as including books, edited monographs, and fully refereed and edited conference proceedings volumes?

A similar query holds for "unpublished research".

To Chia-Lin Chang:

Many thanks for your penetrating and provocative Question as an Answer.

The presentation in RG is not entirely clear on the definitions of "published articles" and "unpublished research".

The description of the RG score in:

https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/RG+Score

"The RG Score measures scientific reputation based on how your work is received by your peers. We believe that researchers are the best judges of each other's work and that all a [sic] person's research, published or not, deserves credit."

The term "work" is not defined.

A "reasonable" definition of "work" would include, as you have suggested, books, edited monographs, and fully refereed and edited conference proceedings volumes, which would appear under "published articles".

Unpublished versions of books, edited monographs, and conference proceedings volumes would presumably appear under "unpublished research".

Dear Michael John McAleer:

Thank you very much for the clear and helpful explanation of the various items that enter an academic's activity in calculating the RG score, and also for the definitions of "published articles" and "unpublished research".

To Chia-Lin Chang:

It is my pleasure.

Thank you for having asked the prescient Question that led to a further analysis of the items that account for the total activities entering the algorithm to calculate the RG score.

Dear Prof @ Michael John McAleer ,

Welcome!

We are grateful to you for various informative inputs. May we continue the journey forward in a similar cognitive manner!

Warm regards.

To P.K. Karmakar:

Many thanks as always for your positive, friendly, encouraging, infectious and interesting Answers.

To quote an animation character who also has a beaming, friendly, confident and positive attitude towards everything:

"To Infinity and Beyond !"

Buzz Lightyear