Let me give you a simple example of how ResearchGate can (sic!) be used for more than just "paper piling" to improve your own public visibility in the research world.

Last year I have set up a RG-project on a very specialist theme from educational research. Looking (again) for new sophisticated software solutions for the boring job of collecting and managing literature references together with their original sources (aka citation management tools and the like) I stumbled upon an interview with a RG member who used such a tool with great success (his own words). I didn't know that tool so I contacted him. He explained. Then we talked about our mutual interest in the specialist theme and soon agreed that we should write a joint paper using the software platform he was so enthusiastic about and I wanted to give a try. After some months we had written two joint papers and I had given two talks at two different conferences.

During our writing process we used ResearchGate as a kind of open access laboratory everybody could enter to see how our research project was developing and to give - perhaps - constructive feedback. We got indeed some encouraging feedback in the form of "recommendations" but I guess the majority of readers dropped in once or twice - and that was it. For us however the important point was that we had to formulate and visualize precisely what we were thinking of and writing up and that helped us a lot to spot weak or wrong arguments or to realize that some "solutions" of our problem would probably be too difficult to implement or to get accepted by "users".

Thus, ResearchGate can indeed be used albeit in a very modest way to support collaboration on a joint research project, but not without the use of other more dedicated tools, e.g. in this case for literature research or actual writing.

But it is easy to come up with examples where ResearchGate would be of no help. For instance, if we were talking about software development projects, no software developer would ever think of going to ResearchGate to collaborate with his team mates: there are excellent tools for software developers which cover the entire software developing cycle. So it's also a matter of which research discipline and research projects you are talking about!

I do'nt think so.

Yes, which is specific one according to the researcher specialty.

@ Kjetil K. Haugen : "... a software platform focusing on research collaboration"? I don't know what exactly your colleagues are thinking of. As far as I know, Academia isn't (yet) prepared or even intended to offer something like that. ResearchGate offers the functionality of Projects, which could be used for that, but my experience is that most RG'ers haven't understood that yet (probably because they think of RG-projects as a kind of personal catalogues), or aren't simply inclined to cooperate on a common interesting theme (just seeing what others are doing is all they want).

I believe there must be a simple explanation which has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a software platform. It has to do with the human, social and organisational side of conducting real research in real teams, i.e. collaboration on the work-floor in the context of a real project. Such collaboration isn't a personal thing you can decide about, it is embedded in an institution's R&D policy and project management and paid by that institution (or even by third parties and research funding agencies on national or international level).

Research cooperation on a software platform could lead to intellectual capital risks for those institutions. Nobody would want to be responsible for that and risk his or her own career.

Furthermore, for such institutional projects there are already more or less powerful team/collaboration supporting software solutions on the market which can be set up for any project individually and thus offers all the protection of intellectual capital rights and economic investments of the institutions involved.

Conclusion: I don't believe that ResearchGate or Academia will ever be able to offer such support with enough security and privacy options. I believe however, that ResearchGate and Academia and similar internet platforms have another mission to fulfill and that they are pretty good at that.

Could be an interesting idea. But, perhaps, in a more enlightened era. If team members do not really know each other, if they collaborate only through a software platform, if they have no personal face-to-face contacts, and if they have very different cultural perspectives, there might be just too much issues to resolve before seeing the outcome of the project. The problems may range from purely practical ones (task allocation, meeting deadlines, etc., etc.) to ethical (who owns the outcome(s) of the research project; if the research outcome is to be published - how the authorship / its sequence will be determined?) to cultural (e.g., in some cultures it may be perfectly acceptable for senior academics/researchers to impose their own ways of doing things and/or being disrespectful toward their junior colleagues); in more egalitarian cultures this is possible to happen but not socially acceptable. So, with all these issues and problems (and it is only a tiny fraction) I am not entirely sure of a huge success of software platform-based research collaborations (maybe, a very moderate success - i.e., for a few cases). But if such a platform is created (some day) I am willing to give it a try!

Actually Larisa, I have written and published a paper with a co-auhtor I still have not met, our only communication in the writing process was through e-mail. Take a look at: Article The new Norwegian incentive system for publication: from bad to worse

It depends on researchers, whether they participate or ignore new web platform

Yes, Kjetil, with a co-author, not the whole research team of 20 (or much more) people. to me, the main point for software-based platforms is to have a big research team with researchers based in various countries and continents, so that the data comes from a multitude of contexts. And this could be more challenging because it's not only about meeting each other face-to-face.

I do not think there is a need for new platforms, because the existing platforms covers the need for scientific research, and I do not think adding a new platform will achieve a qualitative distinction from its predecessor platforms.

No further need!

There is researchgate. We can improve upon it.

I agree with dr. Isam Issa Omran that these platforms cover the need for research, alternatively, development of these platforms necessary with research development.

Let me give you a simple example of how ResearchGate can (sic!) be used for more than just "paper piling" to improve your own public visibility in the research world.

Last year I have set up a RG-project on a very specialist theme from educational research. Looking (again) for new sophisticated software solutions for the boring job of collecting and managing literature references together with their original sources (aka citation management tools and the like) I stumbled upon an interview with a RG member who used such a tool with great success (his own words). I didn't know that tool so I contacted him. He explained. Then we talked about our mutual interest in the specialist theme and soon agreed that we should write a joint paper using the software platform he was so enthusiastic about and I wanted to give a try. After some months we had written two joint papers and I had given two talks at two different conferences.

During our writing process we used ResearchGate as a kind of open access laboratory everybody could enter to see how our research project was developing and to give - perhaps - constructive feedback. We got indeed some encouraging feedback in the form of "recommendations" but I guess the majority of readers dropped in once or twice - and that was it. For us however the important point was that we had to formulate and visualize precisely what we were thinking of and writing up and that helped us a lot to spot weak or wrong arguments or to realize that some "solutions" of our problem would probably be too difficult to implement or to get accepted by "users".

Thus, ResearchGate can indeed be used albeit in a very modest way to support collaboration on a joint research project, but not without the use of other more dedicated tools, e.g. in this case for literature research or actual writing.

But it is easy to come up with examples where ResearchGate would be of no help. For instance, if we were talking about software development projects, no software developer would ever think of going to ResearchGate to collaborate with his team mates: there are excellent tools for software developers which cover the entire software developing cycle. So it's also a matter of which research discipline and research projects you are talking about!

It all depends on how well you can utilise the resources available at your hand already before looking for something new.

I think for now ResearchGate and Academia.edu provides the platform for collaboration with other researchers. Academic social networking is most useful for finding co-authors, networking, having an overview of what others are working on and also useful for getting to know current research publications, and plans/projects. Unless, a new provider will be able to go beyond what is currently in use and be able to provide more functionality and enhanced privacy I doubt if we need a proliferation of these platforms.

Paraphrasing a famous quote of poet Gertrude Stein: "Research is Research is Research ....". Obviously, this is simply not true. Research varies from scientific discipline to discipline, and within disciplines between various specialties, i.e. sub-disciplines with their own vocabulary, methods, techniques, theories, even data and the like. Sometimes they differ just by a shade of grey, sometimes by light years, metaphorically speaking. Nevertheless, if you make enough abstractions, e.g. by at least 10 levels or views, all is research. But what can you faithfully claim to be true or to be required for such abstract ^10 research? Probably nothing that really matters. So please tell me WHAT matters to you and HOW you want to make ResearchGate your primary tool of collaborative research!

There are already some such platforms, as an example - Academia.edu. But so far I know, those are not so famous and large as Research Gate.

I prefer Research Gate, though I am also member of some others.

What makes Academia different from ResearchGate? Fame and size are important indicators, but they don't explain anything because they are effects, not causes. What causes Academia to leap behind ResearchGate in several ways (if that claim is true)? Someone with enough interest, drive and time should study it. But what's more interesting and important: what is still missing with all such platforms? And why isn't it moving into the direction of OPEN SCIENCE?

Links:

http://openscience.org/what-exactly-is-open-science/

https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm

Well Prof Haugen, there are many many forums that do the job of sharing research papers (IEEE /SPIE do , pay $$ ) .

Software : stack overflow /eda /hyperphysics etc etc

No to mention Youtube channels (from Professors) .

www and www3 are loaded with stuff ...

I guess it depends what "performance" mean , like sharing and improving of citations , that needs a BIG DATA tool to catch the idea and translate it to content , pretty sure is expensive !!!!!!

For me they are enough as a network of researchers Research Gate and Academia.edu. They have great international coverage, academic recognition and allow the socialization and teamwork of researchers from different parts of the world

Dear Dr. Kjetil K. Haugen,

In my opinion, yes, we need professional network with dedicated research groups.

I think - If it comes, specialization wise, that will be helpful..

Isn't it curious that we are here still discussing problems that go back - at least - to a famous paper by visionary Vannevar Bush from 1945 (sic!) entitled "As we may think" in which he proposes a "machine" called MEMEX which should help researchers to do their work, including communication with colleagues.

And isn't it curious that we are again discussing a problem for which the 1990 concepts and technologies of internet and world-wide-web have been the answers - for which its pioneer Tim Berners-Lee eventually got the title of Lord.

Remember what www means and was intended for: the world-wide-web of quick and easy communication links between scientists and researchers, originally from physics and technology, but soon from many other research disciplines. It should solve exactly the problem we are discussing here! That this technology came later to be adopted by people and organisations outside science and research is another matter that need not bother us as long as we can go ahead with our job: sharing, cooperating and publishing.

We have achieved so much in so few years! From nothing (1945) to almost anything (2015) you need for communication and collaboration in virtually all fields of human activity.

Why then are we still unsatisfied? Perhaps the answer is as simple as old: once you have solved a really big problem, you see a lot (myriads?) of little problems waiting for their solution (big problems hide small problems, one solution leads to new problems) . But they aren't fundamental or universal problems any more, rather they represent the needs of particular groups of people (here: researchers in some particular field) who want to customize and optimize existing tools of technology for their own purpose(s).

Perhaps we shouldn't expect ready-made universal solutions (like internet/www) for our ever-changing individual needs. Don't wait for others to solve your problems. Be creative! Take a leap! That's the lesson we as scientists learn from history, even from very recent history: less than 50 years ago no scientist would have thought of publishing his papers and books himself; nowadays, world-wide-web is full of providers of self-publishing services. Probably that will be the way for improved and enhanced research collaboration, too.

I think that a true research community is of present persons. Internet has important possibilities for communication but the personal treat is insubstituible for a community.

I agree with Isam Issa Omran

regards

Thanks Iolanda-Gabriela, looks promising (still beta-version, thus under development). I'll give a try.

Or still better: question initiator Kjetil K. Haugen may want to pull together our contributions here in an on-line interactive Authorea document and we'll continue our discussion there, first, to get a feeling of how it works, second, to collect more examples of similar tools which are already on the market and may do the job we are asking for. All in the style of: Don't talk too long, just do it.

Link:

https://intercom.help/authorea/collaborate

Yes but also No...

No because the new one may not be improved one.

Yes but also No...

No because the new one may not be improved one.

Thanks to everybody, it seemed my question triggered some interest. Special thanks to Iolanda-Gabriela Craifaleanu who found an alternative software platform https://intercom.help/authorea/collaborate much in the spirit of my original question and also to Paul Hubert Vossen who suggests I look into it and pull together this discussion as an authorea example. Brilliant idea Paul Hubert. Give some time, and I'll look into it :) - Kjetil

Said Elias wrote "No because the new one may not be improved one." Very true. Two cases:

A successful product like the software tool we are discussing here will be "copied" sooner or later by other wannabe-successful smiths (=software developers). They have a difficult job: on the one side they should provide at least the same functionality; on the other hand they should stay away far enough of the "original" not to be accused of infringing copyrights etc.

But a successful product may also be the timely answer on a need hanging in the air or a problem waiting for its solution. That seems to be case with ResearchGate and Academia, for example: both founded in 2008, not even 10 years ago. Thus it is natural that they overlap but are still quite different. And they came out at a moment that its developers knew pretty well that many things were still missing or needed improvement, both functionality and usability. This innovation process is still going on ... have a look at ResearchGate Blog, e.g.:

https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/five-ways-to-boost-your-projects-visibility

Look here for a list of alterative cooperative writing and other collaboration tools ... :

https://www.capterra.com/collaboration-software/?utf8=%E2%9C%93&feature%5B5%5D=30285&commit=Filter+Results&sort_options=

I think we can use RG's Project pages for performing science (maybe also Q&A). But, of course, it depends on the researchers how frequently they use it...

Best Regards

Andreas

We always need the 'new'.

Don't forget that when RG was launched it was also 'new'.

The essential question could be:

• What kind of a new research platform do we really need now?

The essential question has its dual:

• What kind of habits and tools should we get rid off?

Don't forget that a lot of effort on tool building for research is based on assumptions about how "the" community of researchers has designed its own work environment, and that is highly situated, geographically as well as historically. For example: without the "journal impact factor" (see obituarity below) there would probably have been put much less development effort in the area of reference managers. In a world in which publication and sharing of research results would have shifted largely from paper to internet, the importance of referencing-old-style (pardon: hundreds of styles - what a waste of effort!) would have reduced to a simple click to build in a link to the paper, book or any other source into the new paper or book being written. Just a click! Think about that.

But as is well-known: it is a hundred times more difficult to un-learn old habits and norms than to learn new ways of doing the same job.

Link to "Bibliometrics: An obituary for the impact factor" https://www.nature.com/articles/546600e

I am agree with Dr Paul Hubert Vossen for his answer

Best Regards

Dr. Malik N. Hawas

Quite in support of Dr. Paul Hubert Vossen .

It is important to note that a researcher is not an isolated system! He is also bother by many other issues along side research! Such a software strictly on collaboration may not be able to accommodate all researchers in the same field on a specific project. So many factors will still affect initiation of a project topic and selections of collaborators!

The fact that individual researchers can be contacted and connected via RG platform is a focus in the right direction, at least for the moment!

I do not think there is a need for new platforms , I prefer Research Gate, We can improve upon it.

I do not think so. Regards

Again thanks to all of you for contributing. I will study the list by Iolanda-Gabriela Craifaleanu at ( http://connectedresearchers.com/online-tools-for-researchers/) and then return if and when I get more time looking into this with the aim of following up the suggestion by Paul Hubert Vossen :)

Scholars launch non-profit rival to ResearchGate and Academia.edu

ScholarlyHub will help academics keep control of their work and data, creators argue...

At ScholarlyHub we believe that a critical attitude does not stop with the platforms we use. Growing threats to open science have made it more crucial than before to develop a sustainable, not-for-profit environment. One that allows you to publish, share, and access quality work without financial constraints; find and work with colleagues in fields you’re interested in; develop research and teaching projects; store datasets securely, and mentor and be mentored in order to improve your work and help others. Above all, we want to foster an environment that meets our needs as individuals and scholarly communities and where we are in control, not myopic political agendas, greedy publishers, or data merchants. We believe that scholarship does little good behind pay walls, that metrified rankings rarely promote innovative research, and that transparent communication is vital to quality scholarship and healthy societies. Therefore we’re taking the best of the new and the best of the tried to create a truly open-access repository, publishing service, and scholarly social networking site, with large scope for members' initiatives. And it will be run by scholars: not for profit, greater market share, or political kudos, but for their own growth and everyone’s benefit...

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/scholars-form-non-profit-rival-to-researchgate

https://www.scholarlyhub.org/

My personal opinion is that RG satisfies my research needs.

Research is an innovative process for all the time & every change becomes a new line of action . In this line in the research compass , a new development ,a new line of community may all the time come as in the changing process & as such it is not convenient to draw a line of demarcation between the present research working environment or the new research community Internet platform .

This is my personal opinion

Hi,

Researchgate or academia.edu can help, especially, new researchers to spread their results and share knowledge with other lab. I think that researchgate in progress daily.So i believe that the head of researchgate, will solve questions related to research. and therefore, researchgate can be a plateforme of researchers.

with my best wishes!

Dr. Adel OUESLATI

The full article about ScholarlyHub that I have mentioned in my previous answer is attached. Good to read and see the reactions from RG, Academia...

If they reach their fund-raising goal, the proposal is that ScholarlyHub will be sustained by an annual membership fee of €25 ($29) !!!

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/11/09/scholars-plan-nonprofit-alternative-researchgate?utm_content=buffer324e1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin&utm_campaign=IHEbuffer

I think that some roles are missing at RG to make it a tool for collaboration projects.

One is the role of an editor, say, for collecting sort of invited papers for some volume for some special research topic.

Another one is the role of a conference organizer for some online conference.

With such roles, certain tools should be available, e.g., to trigger a refereeing of contributions, or to organize discussions.

In this way, RG could become a tools for open access publishing, and open access online conferences.

Current versions of articles, software, proceedings and other contributions could be maintained in some RG or external Hub like GitHub.

What do you think about such an approach?

@herbert h h homeier : Generally agree. Note however that you will find a lot of "Call for book chapters ..." here on RG. Just put e.g. "invitation multi-author book" in the search field on the top of the page.

One of the most challenging experiments IMHO has been the idea to write a so-called crowd-sourced book with up to 200 authors: "Would you be interested in contributing to a crowd-authored book" ( https://abdulallily.wordpress.com). Publishers will not be happy, but who cares?

Let me note for completeness that mendeley.com also offers some elements of the research communication platform (e.g. following other researchers and messaging them) but its user base seems quite small so far.

• [added some stuff @ 2017-11-26]

Re Mendeley : I remember experiencing three issues which made me decide to not use it:

Other popular tools had some of the same Knock-Out features. E.g.: I will never-ever use Google Drive again (unless people tel me how to avoid waiting for uploading entire archives days after days).

I tried Citavi, a popular tool here, but it has similar problems. And I can't use it any more now that I am not longer affiliated with a university.

Currently, QIQQA is the only tool that comes close to my (too heavy?) functional requirements. But, frankly, I am not happy with it user interface (look & feel is just acceptable, IMHO). But it is free ... so what am I complaining about?

@ Paul Hubert Vossen: reference management is a bit different story but thanks for sharing your experience, it is indeed enlightening in a way.

@ Artur Sergyeyev : Yes, it is a different story, or rather stories, because there are quite different types of it. And the need among researchers is apparently still not quite satisfied. See the hundreds of questions you get when searching for "reference manager", "citation manager", "literature manager" or the same with "... management system".

• People are still much confused about the overwhelming number of software tools and services available now, or about the best choice from among a handful of alternatives they have heard about, and perhaps have partly unsatisfying experiences with.

Having said that, don't underestimate the importance for acceptability of research tools and services how well they integrate with each other. Surely, only looking at it from a functional perspective ("what do they support?") you may say: "This tool is for reference management, that tool is for collaboration, ...". But pragmatically, we as researchers and authors, are steadily swapping between different tasks which build upon each other. Then the question of "how do they support us collectively?" becomes top priority.

• If the tools you want to use while collaborating with colleagues are not-well integrated or don't allow quick and easy exchange/sharing (e.g.: your colleague wants to send you a couple of references from Endnote, but you can't upload them into your favorite Citavi) you have a serious problem even if there were a technical workaround for it. Often, such workarounds are simply too technical for non-techies, i.e. most of us.

I don't believe that a single solution is already in sight. After all, highly talented people are working on it already for at least forty years without a roundabout solution (instead of a bag full of partial solutions that you have to manage yourself - go figure!), so the problem must be really hard, aggravated by the steady change in available technology.

• It's like a moving target, you're always far behind what would be already possible in the best of worlds, and still farer from what you know that you would really like. And the ultimate question is of course: "Do you really know what you would really like as a tool?"

HCI-experts firmly tell us: "No! Most people are not well-aware of their ultimate needs or their preferences." May be true, otherwise a platform like RG wouldn't exist and flourish. It's like the Chinese proverb: "Ask a bird how it does its beautiful singing, and it will stop singing at all." Or perhaps there is a similar one about millipedes .... ;-)

As regards a library of references including import of web pages, I recently started to use zotero. This is a rather fast working software - for me, so far.

Also, good old bibtex offers quite a lot possibilities, eg, by combining it with some revision control system. One requirement for a library of references would be import/export tools for systems like orcid. There are other important ones, of course, such that to write such interfaces for each of them is messy. Perhaps, an old idea of IBM might be helpful: Write a tool to import into some meta format of the data, you want to share with other applications, and to export from the meta format to your preferred format. In this way, one does not have to write hundreds of import/export interfaces, but only one for the meta format. The question is, however, who defines the meta format. Perhaps, one could use some known standard like bibtex with some extensions for media data as a meta format..

PS: such a meta format might be helpful for designing some formal approach to interfaces between various internet portals that are useful for scientists. I expect, there won't be a gold standard for such internet portal, and each will have pros and cons. Didn't the WWW start from a sort of collection of useful tools? It had quite a number of other approaches like gopher to beat, before becoming the gold standard - a continuously changing one ...

I think that many is not necessarily better. I am happy with Research Gate and even passive in Academia.

I also have similar approach to other internet platforms. For example, you can be active only in Facebook, or simultaneously on Twitter and Instagram. If you choose many, either you can spend too much time on platforms (at the expense of your work and leisure) or choose to cover each of platforms only marginally. Both is bad.

There may be one reason of shift: the platform is bad for you for whatever reason. Then you can search for competitor and in the case of success quit the first. But there is too high investment cost to create your developed profile on each of the platforms.

Have you seen this initiative about RG as publisher of scientific journals?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/ResearchGate_scientific_journals?view=5a26302a4048540180631553

I not is sure ofcollaboration the for study, but for discussionsome with all researchers. However, if you opignon is not good for some important on research gate platform, it is evident - you can not augmented you score, in contrast .... So, it is not for present you opignon on 100%, but only on 20-25% ...

ResearchGate is going well and I hope it will improve further. Let us use this platform optimally.