You will notice that you now get a rating on each of your publications, and an overall score on your file's front page. These scores purport to represent the value of your work to other researchers.
This claim is untrue. What the scores do show is RG's value of your work to itself. This ranking system should be resisted. You get an opportunity to respond to it by clicking the icon next to it.
Different subject areas have widely varying audience sizes. The value of a contribution cannot be judged in relation to its popularity. Indeed, RG lacks the expertise to judge values of diverse publications.
Dear Christopher Nock
In the last 2.5 years, researchgate has messed-up in many ways, other than that new "feature" you now point out. One way is: For many months now: all of what was once called "Contributions" is called "Research" (there ARE other contributions than what most would call "research"). AND, they obviously have a HUGE experimental (vs observational) research bias -- which is basically a lot of ANTI-SCIENCE. Mention of experimentation (and asking you to list yours) comes up ALL OVER THE PLACE; BUT nothing having to do with reliable (and likely valid) sets of OBSERVATIONS -- these exist in science too, and are actually fundamental and foundational !
Plus, they consider the list of labels they have for you to label your posts with to be fully adequate; they used to let you add some [(for example: innate action pattern, species-typical action pattern, and species-specific action pattern ARE NOT PROVIDED AND ADDING ANY IS DISALLOWED; many other such limitations in "keywords" have appeared (many ALL would disagree with) -- I just mentioned the first that "came to mind"). ]
Here is one part of one possible explanation: I basically think (based on several observations in several areas, including cable TV) that programmers just have to keep busy. To keep busy, you do not always have good ideas and, in fact, put some bad ideas into effect.
Christopher Nock : The new change you describe sounds bad (I have not myself yet seen it, but if it is as you say (and is of an inappropriate nature), it is bad).
I hate to think how many people say "to heck with RG"; I, myself, wonder if I would have joined RG under the present circumstances. Some of the changes, I pointed out, might be considered scientific malpractice.
Maybe someone should have a talk with their Board of Directors.
Different subject areas have widely varying audience sizes. The value of a contribution cannot be judged in relation to its popularity. Indeed, RG lacks the expertise to judge values of diverse publications.
This is true for any metric used, including h-index, impact factor, etc. So what? Do you reject all of these metrics too? It's nice to have the metric.
Brad, thanks for your detailed response!
I have picked up some of their previous wrongdoings, and pursued threads on them. I have reported the findings of those to RG and never had an adequate response!
I am appalled by many of the recent changes and I do think it's time they took our protests onboard. Let's give thought to how to do that. In the mean time, see what others think.
NOCK
Dear Christopher Nock
I, too, have contacted them with regard to most (if not all) the changes I noticed: NO response.
Daniel, it's nice to have metrics that make proper comparisons, if you need metrics. My own preference is to judge things on their own merit relative to my own particular needs at any given time.
NOCK
Christopher Nock, we have the raw data. We see how many recommendations an article has, how many reads and full text reads it has, and we can read the article itself too. And since a lot of people work within a single field or a couple of fields, they would quickly be able to determine how the score applies to that respective field.
Look, once again we're not going to agree. You pick the metrics you trust, I'll ignore the ones I don't.
The topic is raising one more concern over many raised over se real years. The issue is really about continUal shoddy treatment by RG. I would have hoped a true polymath might have grasped that.
NOCK
I don't see any shoddy treatment here. I see it as giving us more data. And I'm always a fan of more data. Also, I just noticed that you can do a comparison by research interest. The system does it for us! We don't even need to go through the individual articles. Just click on more details, then more comparisons, and you can see how the article or author's research interest compares with others, in a given research area.
I would have hoped a true polymath might have grasped that.
There is no benefit in making this statement. It adds nothing to this discussion. But you are correct. I have not "grasped" why adding a new metric that we can look at is "shoddy treatment."
You want to completely take this discussion off topic? Okay. Very well. How does anyone know what they are? What I can say is that I have more than a superficial understanding of at least three different topics and how they can be related to one another.
That'll do for me! Self-identification is a wonderful thing....
NOCK
I don't know what would count as the later in self-identification. That's because no one who is a genuine polymath would self-identify.
Nock
Says who? A polymath is a polymath. The idea that self identification excludes a person from being a polymath is just silly. But I do understand that you have spent this entire time, diverting attention away from the point of question and towards trying to "subtly" attack me.
Well, let me tell you, you ain't one. That's a fact. You can offer some very interesting comments from time to time. But we'd expect that from anyone on this site.
In my life, I have been independently labelled a polymath, a genius, and a legend! I can't speak for the labellers. What they think of me is their business. But I never put any store by any of the labels. If they are correctly applied, it's in very narrow circumstances in which I happen to fit the bill in a particular time.
I now constitute a dying bed ridden cripple. That is self-identification. But then I almost died to when the power to my oxygen machine went off. My stats dropped from the minimum 87% (98% for most people) to 60%. I was rescued by a local building worker who "broke in" and put things right before the arrival of an ambulance crew. Point? Some self-identications are so clearly correct they must be allowed. Your's isn't.
Your self loathing and pity don't really change much. You seem obsessed with my self identification, and have brought it up on numerous occasions, even totally ignoring the actual point of the discussion, as you are doing here. Perhaps you view yourself as inadequate. I don't know.
So why is it that you think deciding to give additional information to their user base is an abuse by ResearchGate? What are they doing to hurt you?
Dear Lord, anyone viewing your RG file will spot the I inadequacies here.
You're now talking utter tripe, something I don't listen to. You are not to contact me again on this or any other matter.
Christopher NOCK
You are not to contact me again on this or any other matter.
Uh... RG is a public discussion platform. You don't issue orders of who can and cannot "contact" you, but since you have no desire to actually discuss the topic that you mentioned in the original post, I will leave you to your own misery.
I've said it before and I'll say it again Stanley, you're a very naughty boy!
NOCK
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publications