The criteria for calculation is limited to only those research papers and articles which are available on ResearchGate. Citations if given on RG only then they are considered for inclusion for RG score calculation. RG scores should consider the data records available on google scholar or any other reliable sources.....
A good researcher is not recognized via RG points or impact factor points or google scholar points (or whatever xy points). There is a little bit more than these points... Think about it! Cheers, Nadine
@Rahul. What do you thing the RG score is supposed to measure and which activities, accomplishments etc. do you lack credit for?
I agree with Chen. The main objective of RG is to share the Scientific ideas. And indeed it gave us a very good plateform of sharing ideas and gaining knowledge.
Yes I fully agree with L. Chen that RG score is nothing. But at the same time RG is a site where one can share research related problems/ideas and get the responses/ answers from the scientific community of the world. It is a platform to interact with the researchers of the international repute.
I agree that RG scores should consider the data records available on google scholar or any other reliable sources and not only Citations if given on RG only then they are considered for inclusion for RG score calculation.
RG is not the best index in the world, but "nothing" is to drastic.
Rahul is right, RG can be improved.
I think that they try and, so far, we are here because they work on it.
The authors who are not rg ,we can not cite them, so rg should use other database for citations.....I personally means rg score improves by many things ,you have to spend more time on rg....
A good researcher is not recognized via RG points or impact factor points or google scholar points (or whatever xy points). There is a little bit more than these points... Think about it! Cheers, Nadine
I agree with many of your comments. The value and strenght of RG relies into the plataform that allow us to share ideas and knowlegde with others colleagues.
However, the fact that there is a measure or index RG also matters, specially when it encourages their use (RG index) to include in the CV.
Given the current situation of scientific evaluation and the emergence of other measures (atmetrics) to assess the scientific activity, RG should be transparent and improve their criteria into calculation to serve as a serious and reliable alternative.
I agree with Nadine that scores, impact factors and all other attempts to give value to ideas, discoveries and persons are seriously flawed. Perhaps it comes of a society where everything is valued on a scale of economic importance, so IFs, RG scores and so on are an attempt to introduce 'currency' in the scientific world. The operation of stock markets and the international monetary exchange rates have shown us that currencies can be manipulated by relatively small numbers of people; the Bank for International Settlements has shown us how behind-the-scenes directors control international monetary policy and affect all our lives. I do not think it would be a good idea to give too much importance to scoring systems in science, whether at the level of IFs, CIs, RG scores or whatever.
The important thing is to keep doing good work. After all, these systems are recent in origin and can only survive if we accept them.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Scientific Research