Consuming only information that confirms their opinions (or beliefs) is certainly prevalent in such things as politics and religions. It should not be so in science where we have hypotheses and hypothesis testing, and theories that are supposedly the result of confirmation by much testing, But alas science is a human undertaking and humans are humans and are susceptable to welcoming data that supports their opinions, hypotheses, theorys,  and beliefs, and inclined to be dismissive of, or deaf to, contrary data. Every scientist needs to be aware of this, and to be careful not to fall into this trap. Of  course science will make mistakes, but they should ultimately be corrected by following the scientific method, but unfortunately this often takes a long time.    

As a researcher you have to have your scepticism filter turned on all the time. This should be true for all RGers. I would love to meet somebody here who could negate my thesis.

RG is not a social network. We never say "Hello, how are you? I am fine. How are your children?" RG is strictly for research business. Popular answers percolate to the top only to help us digest the research information overload. "Up-votes" are only there to encourage each other. 

I think you have a very valid point, Rudolf. The more that interpersonal communication is overseen by unseen and flawed algorithms in the name of efficiency, the worse it's going to get. Furthermore, the algorithms already select information not just on the basis of what the recipient has been interested in recently, they add in information about things that the algorithm's sponsors think will make the recipient either directly or indirectly send them or supply them with money. This is disgraceful.

Look for a statistical topic called "confirmation bias" and you'll find a lot of support to answer your questions.  Good luck!

Consuming only information that confirms their opinions (or beliefs) is certainly prevalent in such things as politics and religions. It should not be so in science where we have hypotheses and hypothesis testing, and theories that are supposedly the result of confirmation by much testing, But alas science is a human undertaking and humans are humans and are susceptable to welcoming data that supports their opinions, hypotheses, theorys,  and beliefs, and inclined to be dismissive of, or deaf to, contrary data. Every scientist needs to be aware of this, and to be careful not to fall into this trap. Of  course science will make mistakes, but they should ultimately be corrected by following the scientific method, but unfortunately this often takes a long time.    

I think that ResearchGate , as Academia.edu , are quite good ways to spread the scientific work of each of us . Especially , those papers and books, that are not published in English : the current trend in fact, heavily influenced by questionable motives of " Impact Factor " , is to neglect all the literature that i) is not recent , and ii ) is published in a language other than English. This involves , among other things , a not insignificant proportion of "new findings " or " new ideas " which in reality are not such.

@ Keith Robert: you said it's prevalent in politics and religions, especialy in this cases it would be essential to see also other point of views in order to prevent radicalism and terrorism!

@ Jan: I probably think, RG is a Social Network, of course with an other focus. I see no danger to get no neglects of our theories, I already had not only one for myself :)

@ Mario: I share your opinions about the advantages of RG or platforms like this!

It is indeed a regretable fact that articles which are in low 'impact factor' journals, or which are not cited sufficiently, tend to be ignored. We can all try to reverse this tendency by being open-minded and using our own judgement regarding the value of the published works, regardless of the journal or number of citations. It is also true, unfortunately, that publications not in English, or that are not translated into English, do tend to be ignored. We really do need a universal language that is taught to children in all countries, in addition to their native language. However, that would be a long term project, but is one that could be implemented.   

I agree with what Robert Keith writes. However I consider desirable that the English speaking scientists take into account also  the works written in other languages, regardless of bibliometric assessment of journal in which they are published. Although I feel inelegant quoting myself, I’d remind that when Gonzalo Halffter and I  faced the issue of Onthophagus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) associated with caves or underground nests of vertebrates, at a global scale,  we considered ethically correct to make an extensive literature search. It turned out a corpus of 116 papers published from 1894 to 2006, in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, Russian, Romanian, Ukrainian, Polish, Czech, that we fully consulted. This approach derives not only from scientific ethical principles, but also by other kinds of considerations. All of us agree - I hope - in considering biodiversity as a value. I personally believe that the cultural and linguistic diversity is a value to be preserved and defended against the global homologation.

Reference: Zunino, M. & G. Halffter, 2007. The association of Onthophagus Latreille, 1802 beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) with vertebrate burrows and caves. ELYTRON, 21: 17 – 55 (available on ResearchGate)

I am glad to have the universal scientific language English to communicate with other researchers - like we do now. I also appreciate other tools, that we can use to find relevant research in a near to "objective" way in the confusing ocean of publications. Also tools like citations index or impact factor, even this is not perfect.

Within the internet you can get articles from a journal with only a small edition without impact factor and no citations and articles in other languages just as well. It will be a question of time, that the translation tools change from ridiculous to reliable.

So it is up to us, to make our research international reliable and readable. 

More risks for international open research I would see in the copyright of the papers by their publisher, which leeds to a elitist research clientele who have the money to buy the papers.

The other danger for open research derives from companies which do not publish their research in order not to be copied, but this is an other big question concerning copyright, patents and other belongings of scientific research.

 Mr. Zunino, I tried to read your reference: "The association of Onthophagus...". I could not find it on RG but on Academia.

Sorry to all, as I wrote directerly to RR, It was a mistake by myself, the paper is available on Academia.edu

                                                                         MZ

Rudolf Ritt: I agree with your first two statements, and as for an answer to your first question, I think it is contradictory to objective thinking and having an open mind. However, I do not understand what you are implying regarding the filtering systems of RG - could you elaborate please, as this is an important point.

I don't see how the ResearchGate platform (and its filtering) could harm global science. To the contrary, RG is a great research network, which helps to fight the US dominance in modern science. For example, articles which are not listed in Pubmed or other US-based databases, can be added to RG and due to linked references other scientists become aware of alternative scientific explanations. What we need in science is a new multicultural approach and not any Facebook- and Twitter-like (mainstream-based) monopoly of thinking! It is a fact that the majority of people (or scientists) is mostly wrong ;-)

It is perhaps a worry that the old standard of peer revue can be bypassed on ResearchGate. This may be a good thing in that it allows the expression of concepts that do not necessarily comply with mainstream theory, but which nevertheless may be enlightening, or it may be a bad thing in that allows 'unscientific' or faulty concepts or data to be widely distributed. It is indeed liberating for those who think outside of the limitations of accepted dogma and norms, but it may also open a gate to irrational pseudoscience. On the whole the liberation from the restrictions of editors and peer reviewers could be good, as with the demise of the 'Central Dogma' in biology, for example, any faith I may once have had in the unfailing correctness of textbooks  or of orthodoxy is long gone. It is up to us, the researchers, to make ResearchGate work for the betterment of science.

@Keith

Peer review is useless when it comes to the introduction of new concepts in biology. Average scientists will always adhere to the mainstream view and defend it. Even worse, peer review and the global "publish or perish" trend have severely damaged modern science. About half of the published literature (in peer reviewed journals) may simply be untrue. 

Recent article of the editor-in-chief of the Lancet

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext?rss%3Dyes

Hi, I read the lancet paper, and It seems that most of it is true.  The pseudoscience could be found mostly in sciences that involve laboratory work, and statistics. The true/false results of these field are more visible than in theoretical work of the humanities, or in mathematics.

Yes, false experimental data COULD be found...but mostly they aren't. As long as nobody repeats the same experiments, we cannot trust the data and cannot rely on peer review or the impact factor of the journal anymore. This is a huge crisis and it explains why modern medical research does not deliver any breakthroughs anymore (e.g. in cancer).

@ Keith Robert Oliver: The essay in the newspaper aims to social networks like facebook or twitter. The essence is, that people with exteme political or religious opinions get mostly informations which strenghten their attitudes and they may loose their open mind. It leads also to the adjustment, most people would think how they think. The algorithms of the social networks boost this facts.

Since RG is in its principles also a "social network" and gives us informations, connects us with other researchers and so on by algorithms, too. I asked how the researchers on RG care about this.

This was my question, not my opinion! I think, the filtering system of RG is not leading us in a tendentious way, it is important to find related research and researchers.

I think, the evidence-based research is a good approach to better results, but will be hardly enforceable. I know it from dentistry: most of the findings are not evidence-based but "eminence-based". This must not be wrong, but we are called upon to challenge it.

I share the opinion of Keith Robert Oliver, that on one side bypassing peer review may give unscientific and faulty concepts a big platform to spread their data. But there is also a broad public to neglect those data and we are so able to do it. If the error ratio in peer reviewed journals is as high as remarked in "The Lancet" noted above, perhaps this is the better way?

On the other hand many scientists who have no approach to famous and widespread journals can take part in the big concert of science, I think a lot of manpower or lines of thoughts will be delivered in this way!

I think that it is an excellent sign, that RG contributers are debating this issue so thoroughly. I find it hard to add anything new! However, going back to the original question, I would re-iterate that the use of any filtering techniques that use algorithms may have undesirable results. Algorithms are fine when operating in a defined environment with specific data but they do not work well when in a fuzzy environment with incomplete date. You can use fuzzy algorithms, true, but the results will be even less predictable.

I think that only human beings can adequately monitor the literature of other human beings as only they have the tremendous background of knowledge built up from childhood and life experience which provides a basis for making contextually appropriate selections. Try putting all that in a database - and good luck to whoever has a go!  So, viva RG!

People do not seek information & knowledge, but a support for their attitudes and interests. That is how contemporary world and public discourse function. Let me quote a paragraph from my book "Communication and Control", which regards this issue.

6.56 - Castells ("Communication Power") reminds us that "people tend to believe what they want to believe" (p. 153) and that they tend to believe this "for as long as they can" (p. 404). This is basically correct; a more accurate description of this situation can run as follows. In the present world of manipulation, the concept of believing has lost its authentic meaning (if it ever had it). ... Politicians and other power-holders have distorted the public discourse to such an extent that it makes no sense to speak about a real believing. People see that life and history are shaped by violence and lies, and that most people claim what they considers it is in their interest, without believing this and without paying much attention to whether this is true or not.

I wrote the above text in response to Castells' question how is it possible that people (American citizens) "believe" whatever their power-holders tell them. In my view, nobody really believes anything. Public discourse is a matter of interest.

PS: Sorry, my answer regard people in general, not specifically scientists. But the situation is probably similar.

Mr. Radovan, 

thank you for adjusting my question to a greater context. For sure you are right, that this behavior is not limited to scientists!

Thank you for the hint to your book!

I think Radovan's answer is cynical. History is shaped by good deeds and good intentions as well as violence and Lies. Beliefs are in the sub-conscious, so are not generally questioned in individuals, as there reasoning starts from their beliefs and does not question their beliefs. Scientists (and philosophers) have to try hard to rise above this and question their beliefs, and have the knowledge that science is generally self-correcting and many of the hypotheses and theories (and even laws) we now think are correct  may one day be proven to be incorrect.

Best regards,

Keith

Well, I did not intend to be cynical. My answer was brief and probably one-sided, but it does not seem wrong. Mark Bauerlein calls teachers, scientists, artists, ... "the stewards of wisdom and beauty". Let me quote my comment on such (one-sided) discourse.

The stewards of wisdom and beauty have not been responsible for all problems of this world, but they have not been impeccable either. Speaking about the events related to the First World War, Ervin Staub says that German academics and intellectuals issued several declarations in which they gave the support to the conquering ambitions of the German political and military elite. For example, a declaration from 1915, which claimed that "it would be reasonable and just for Germany to acquire Belgium, parts of France, the Ukraine, and other territories" was signed by 352 "most distinguished professors" (Staub, 107). A German pacifist tried to react to this declaration with a "Manifesto to Europeans", calling for the united and peaceful Europe; it seems that only three academics were ready to sign this manifesto (p. 107). This is remarkable, indeed. ... Such behaviour of the academics can be explained by the pressures to which they were probably exposed, and by a reasonable fear to stand up to the ruthless and militant regime, but the score of 352 against 3 is nevertheless depressing.

I am not sure that the situation has changed much in this regard. Power, rather than wisdom and beauty, shapes the world and history.

Mr. Radovan, I hope, you do not think that the situation of the German academics has not changed in this regard.

I think, like Mr. Oliver, that history is not only shaped of power and egoism. There are also a lot of people with influence, who fight for a better world. 

I think it depends a lot of the regime in a country. A democratic system has a lot of feebleness, but I think, like Churchill said, there is no better system. Of course it needs division of power, limitation of reelection, regard of minorities, and it should be disestablished.

This could limitate the power of one strong woman or man or the dictatorship of the majority over the minority.

To come back to the roots of the question: nobody, in politics or even in scientific research, should think his way will be the only and the right one. You have to scrutinize it, you have to make a challenge.

In science we have to look, what is right and what is wrong. It is different in politics, you mostly have to balance the different interests. This is why even good politicians are not favored: if you found a good balance of interests, it could happen that both parties hate you!

A very good reply by Rudolph Ritt. Science and politics are, or certainly should be, worlds apart. In science we seek to find true theories and true explanations, and we are, or should be, always ready to change our minds if new data indicates that our previous hypotheses, theories, or paradigms  were incorrect. In biology much has been forcibly  changed since the sequencing of genomes was accomplished,  and I anticipate that many more changes will be needed as new data are discovered.

Even if, very unfortunately, much of politics is about power, all of science should be about truth, otherwise science will wither and die, and that would be, or should be, unthinkable.

Keith Robert Oliver: "Science and politics are, or certainly should be, worlds apart." 

Correct. But they are usually not. Because scientists and scientific institutions depend on business and politics. Things are not completely one way or the other: they are usually mixed. However, nothing is independent from personal, economic, and political interests & ambitions.

I guess you are correct in may cases, but my field is evolutionary biology with there are no political or business interests involved. it is just a matter of trying to get to the facts - with an open mind. But I suppose personal ambitions may be problematic. However, science must be honest, or eventually it will die, and we must take heed of that.