RG has become the benchmark and perhaps the most famous social networking platform for many of the researchers/scientists/students etc. As such, do you think it would be appropriate if one were to include reviews/comments provided by some of the well known researchers in a particular field as in-text citations, or even as references in thesis, or when writing a manuscript?
I think citing RG comments is an interesting proposition. It has been practice for hundreds of years to cite "personal communications" and there are official style guidelines set forth for such. However, I think that in such a scenario context becomes very important. As has been pointed out, the comments on RG are not peer-reviewed literature and as such cannot be treated as though they are. However, in the discourse of a thesis, review, or textbook I would rather encourage the appropriate citation of a personal communication and , thereby, appropriate attribution, so long as the author had subsequent results to either support or refute the opinion or advice offered in the personal communication. Without this context it becomes nothing more than an anecdote about a discussion with little scientific relevance. I am far from an authority on scientific writing and what the collective consciousness in science believes but I feel that we may begin to see the trend of citing personal communication becoming popularized once again in the near future, especially with the advent of this technology and the ability to provide a link so that there is no dispute about what the content of a personal communication actually was.
Dear Saranpal,
The comments by RG cannot be qouted but most of the RG uploaded the articles which are most relevant to their field of study and reliable to qoute as at present the comments are not peer reviewed in my opinion, its a plat form where RG give advice for reseach etc..
I think citing RG comments is an interesting proposition. It has been practice for hundreds of years to cite "personal communications" and there are official style guidelines set forth for such. However, I think that in such a scenario context becomes very important. As has been pointed out, the comments on RG are not peer-reviewed literature and as such cannot be treated as though they are. However, in the discourse of a thesis, review, or textbook I would rather encourage the appropriate citation of a personal communication and , thereby, appropriate attribution, so long as the author had subsequent results to either support or refute the opinion or advice offered in the personal communication. Without this context it becomes nothing more than an anecdote about a discussion with little scientific relevance. I am far from an authority on scientific writing and what the collective consciousness in science believes but I feel that we may begin to see the trend of citing personal communication becoming popularized once again in the near future, especially with the advent of this technology and the ability to provide a link so that there is no dispute about what the content of a personal communication actually was.
IT can be referenced. Referencing like an Internet message board, as per American Psychological Association standard should be:
Author, A.A. (year, month day). Title of post, Retrieved from http://......
For example,
Peter Breuer. (2014, April). Can the comments and inputs given by RG researchers be used as references in thesis or journals? What are your thoughts pertaining this?. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_the_comments_and_inputs_given_by_RG_researchers_be_used_as_references_in_thesis_or_journals_What_are_your_thoughts_pertaining_this?_sg=QOUBBHvQLmI8xTG6bS%2F78whEk1ibhsD9CML6A5CYNBcJN1Y1%2B4fvEq%2F8oejCgygl
Comments on this site undoubtedly fall under the category of unpublished information. They have not been peer-reviewed, and that decides it. In most cases, talk abstracts in symposia volumes have not been peer-reviewed, either, and therefore even these abstracts cannot be regarded as published (in the sense that they are not scientific publications).
Most high-quality journals have specific rules about quoting unpublished information. Some journals allow this type of quotation as ", , personal communication", others state instead that it must be quoted as ", , unpublished". Yet others simply do not allow citing unpublished information.
Just follow the journal's instructions, or if in doubt ask the editor(s).
There is no specific rule stating that unpublished information has to be retrievable. Personal communications do include unrecorded and unwitnessed conversations between as few as two persons.
Whether RG is famous and/or a benchmark is not relevant.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cell Biology
- Methods