I din't think that interaction with lower RG score people decrease your points..they just do not increase it like interaction with high GR score. When interacting I look, probably as majirity of us, at contents, not RG reputation.

Prof Dr Michael John McAleer , thank you for sharing this. I have gone through it but in practice it does not seem to be working perfectly. No one know the logarithm how RG score is calculated. I have noticed people having higher RG score gain good point score compared to lower one when we talk about RG score. I some times feel confuse whether it is increased in terms of % of RG score.

Regards

Hom

To Hom Nath Chalise:

Many thanks for your considered and helpful response.

I agree that there is no perfect measure of academic social activity or research quality, but TRI seems to have fewer intrinsic problems than the RG score.

If the algorithm for the RG score were to be made transparent, we could discuss the pros and cons of the algorithm itself rather than what the algorithm might be.

I din't think that interaction with lower RG score people decrease your points..they just do not increase it like interaction with high GR score. When interacting I look, probably as majirity of us, at contents, not RG reputation.

To Mirna Leko-Šimić :

The RG website makes it rather clear how the RG score can increase or decrease, on average, according to how we interact with academics.

Like you, I am more interested in the content of the Q&A rather than RG scores.

I do not believe that interaction with high RG score member increases your RG Score, if so I should have RG score above 100. Because I am regularly getting comments from scholar with high RG score in my questions. Any way lets just enjoy it in the form of academic social media. Thu number concept is quite different that other social media, that makes it unique and criticism as well.

Mirna Leko-Šimić I love quality interaction and hate some frequent interactions from same people: following, wonderful, good discussion, ...

To Hom Nath Chalise:

I agree with your assessment and sentiments.

The RG score is of peripheral interest to most academics on RG.

To Hom Nath Chalise:

The interactions with other academics refer to Reads and Recommendations in both directions.

The overall impact is an averaging process across all RG scores, that is, high and low RG scores relative to one's own RG score.

Personally, I have seen it go up, down or stay the same for a while and have not taken much interest. Perhaps because like Hom Nath emphasized, my interest in RG has been the ease in sharing and seeing other peoples research, constant updates on new developments, etc.

To Tayebwa Dickson:

Thank you for your interesting and sharing response.

There is a good reason why the RG score increases or decreases, even though it may not be of much interest to academic researchers.

My considerations/analyses/comparisons of changes of RG scores of some RG members with respect to Reports for week ending indicate a general fact that an answer to the RG question including relatively small number of answers is less valued than an answer to the RG question including relatively large number of answers. The same assertion is also true for RG score – valuations of recommendations of answers to these two kinds of questions.

To Romeo:

Purely as an arithmetic exercise, it might be worth checking if the mean of the RG scores of a relatively small number of Answers to a particular Question was higher or lower than your RG score, and similarly for a relatively large number of Answers.

A parallel exercise could be conducted for Recommendations.

Dear Michael John McAleer,

Of course! For these purposes (suggested ”an arithmetic exercise” in the previous your answer – 15 hours ago), it would be very useful related statistical data on RG scores given in many answers to the RG question “Will you please share your week ending report ? ” (https://www.researchgate.net/post/Will_you_please_share_your_week_ending_report) proposed by Hom Nath Chalise (February 13, 2019).

To Romeo:

I do not mind if people look at my RG page, but I would prefer not to distribute my RG metrics.

Established academics should be encouraged to assist graduate students and younger or less experienced academics, so the RG score should give greater, not lower, weights to Answers for any Questions by those who need it most.

Dear Chia-Lin,

I completely agree with your previous answer. Actually, I try to make my many answers (on RG questions in different Mathematical Areas and their Applications) useful in the sense stated in your answer.

To Chia-Lin Chang:

Many thanks for your pro-active endorsement to assist graduate students and any academics by providing Answers to their Questions, regardless of their RG scores.

This satisfies the definition of a genuinely motivated academic teacher and researcher.

To Romeo:

Many thanks for your supportive and encouraging Answer to both the Question and helpful Response.

It is an important responsibility and duty for experienced academic teachers and researchers to give helpful and informative Answers to the Questions asked by graduate students and academics.

The following thread might be of interest as it is related to this Question:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Q_A_on_the_RG_score

The following Question should be added to the list, especially as it might well have been the first to invite discussion about the meaning of the RG score:

2013

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_researcher_has_the_highest_RG_score_and_what_does_that_really_mean

The following thread might be of interest as it is related to this Question:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Q_A_on_the_RG_score

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

I think Researchgate Institution should develope his algorithm.

To Abambres M. :

Many thanks for the interesting reference, which is essentially an opinion piece.

Peer review will not disappear until we can replace the process by one that is widely accepted by the academic community as provably superior and more robust.

To Houssam Khelalfa :

Many thanks for your helpful response.

There must be an algorithm for calculating the RG score, but RG does not seem to be willing to share it with the RG academic community, as is their right.

There would be few Questions asked about the RG score if the algorithm were known, and the RG scores were reproducible.

for me, peer review is already dead

To Abambres M. :

We are all entitled to our opinions.

I respect yours, while disagreeing with it.

Many academics in medical-related research, where team research is standard, have TRI >> 50,000, with the highest I have seen being 122,521, with Citations = 243,462 and RG score = 56.37.

As academic researchers in medical-related disciplines tend not to engage in Q&A, their RG scores seldom exceed 60.

It is worth reflecting on why so many academics seem to emphasize the RG score when the most prolific researchers have relatively low RG scores.

Dear Michael John McAleer:

Thank you for the helpful information on how academics in medical-related disciplines can have extremely high TRI but relatively low RG scores.

Whether RG score exist or not, for me it does not make any difference because my principal objective to consult RG is to have access to the huge pool of information available on this network and to be able to contact easily other researchers.

To Jean-Pierre Jost :

I am in strong agreement with your insightful assessment, for which many thanks.

I enjoy the endless discussions in Q&A, where everyone seems to have an opinion.

This should be encouraged as most Questions are open ended and do not have uniquely correct Answers.

In connection with the RG score, as of 26 May 2019 I have compiled a list of 126 academics with RG score > 100.

I do not pretend to have a comprehensive list, but I am able to provide some data to support sensible empirical discussion about the RG score, whether you care about the RG score or not.

In my list, the highest RG score = 965.45, with h-index = 27.

Of the 126 academics, 32 have h-indexes in the range [0, 10).

Two academics have h-index = 0, and four have h-index = 1.

The remaining 94 academics have an h-index in the range [10, 91], with more than one-half of 94 having h-index > 25.

This is not achieved through endless Q&A, contrary to what has been repeated in various threads relating to the RG score, but through serious academic research over an extended period.

The following thread might be useful to anyone (still) asking about the RG score: https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_Childs_Guide_to_Calculating_the_RG_Score

This interesting related thread makes it clear that, in the absence of collusion, there is one thing that an academic cannot control, namely all the other academics who might interact with our published articles, unpublished research, projects, Reads, Recommendations, and Q&A.

Therefore, for those who might be interested in increasing their RG scores, for reasons that escape me, there is no guarantee that the RG score will change in the desired direction.

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.

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

It might be worth explaining the items that affect the calculation of the RG score.

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

The description of the RG score is given at:

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".

I wish to thank all the respondents for their interesting, challenging, informative, instructive, innovative, topical, timely, entertaining, and occasionally highly amusing, Answers.

This is a Question that needs to be asked:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_Question_needs_to_be_asked

Really? This is quite a big flaw, if so. How do you then encourage interaction with lower cadre like us? I know that discussions boost the score a lot but this not encouraging if so. I am gonna watch out!

To Segun Thompson Bolarinwa :

Many thanks for your helpful and watchful Answer.

It is unfortunate, but true, as the statement is copied directly from the RG website.

I object to using the RG scores of other academics with whom we exchange and interact in calculating our own RG score as that discourages, rather than encourages, academic social activity in Q&A.

Every academic is equal, as it should be, and using RG scores to differentiate, distinguish and discriminate among active members goes against the ethos of broad-based intellectual activity and engagement.

Interesting

To Folorunsho M Ajide :

Thank you for your interest in the Question.

It might be worth highlighting that an academic's RG score can change even if they do absolutely nothing for an entire week in terms of adding zero Q&A, Reads, Recommendations, published articles, and unpublished papers.

This is because the RG scores of all the other academics who interact with an academic's previous Q&A, Reads, Recommendations, published articles, and unpublished papers, during the week will affect your RG score.

The RG score is an interaction between an academic and every other academic who engages in exchange and interactions with all current and previous RG activities.

The combined effect of the hundreds, if not thousands, of exchanges and interactions in each direction yields an average outcome, with any single activity in each direction having a negligible effect on the RG score.

It is interesting to note that there are not many contributions to Q&A of academics with exceptionally high RG scores.

However, that does not prevent academics with lower RG scores from reading and recommending published articles, unpublished papers, and previous Q&A of academics with exceptionally high RG scores.

As mentioned on related threads, the RG score depends on the RG scores of all other academic with whom we interact, and is defined at:

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

"Our algorithm looks at how your peers receive and evaluate these contributions, and who they are. The higher the RG Scores of those who interact with your research, the more your own score will increase. A low-quality contribution probably won't attract positive feedback and recognition from the community, so it won't contribute to your score in any significant way."

The statement in bold is the key as it refers to not attracting positive feedback (note: 'not positive' = negative).

This is how the RG score can decrease, namely when your activities on Q&A are recommended by academics with RG scores that are lower than yours."

In short, Recommendations work both ways, that is, when you recommend others, and when others recommend you.

This applies to your stock of Q&A, and all of your published and unpublished papers on RG.

The RG score is not scientifically accredited or by academic institutes such as the H index

To Taher Alkhalaf :

Many thanks for your interesting Answer.

The h-index is the most widely-used measure of academic research quality, impact, influence and productivity.

The RG score is not a indicator of scientific research performance, but rather a measure of academic social media popularity.