If there is valid reasons for the objection about some questions or answers, these must be clarified so that corrective can be taken.

If there is valid reasons for the objection about some questions or answers, these must be clarified so that corrective can be taken.

Generally, I agree with Qasim Mohammed and Subhash. But some of the questions tend to be so infantile or naïve that it is sometimes difficult to refrain from brusque comment. The RG nevertheless portal for scientists and not the usual social or chatty portal. Sometimes some colleagues seem a bit forgotten about it.

t.

Generally, I agree with Qasim Mohammed and Subhash. But some of the questions tend to be so infantile or naïve that it is sometimes difficult to refrain from brusque comment. The RG nevertheless portal for scientists and not the usual social or chatty portal. Sometimes some colleagues seem a bit forgotten about it.

t.

The RG is the station for the exchange of views and ideas, which ,sometimes, express personal views especially in the non-scientific issues. Accordingly, the difference in opinions is a natural issue. For this, I see there is an importance to write a clear and explicit views among colleagues.

Dear Dr. Qasim

Very good question. I am with the freedom of speech; any person can ask anything anytime anyway he/she wants. The last of those (the way) sometimes need mature people to accept it and deal with it. I have no issue at all with any question whatsoever. I believe asking is the key to knowing. Without knowledge there is nothing moving forward. Simply, if they object it is their right and any person asks it is his/her right as much as there is no offense from both sides in addition to what you have stated: there should be an explanation of the point of view. Same issue goes with voting down a question or an answer; I am simply against voting down without an explanation. 

Thanks for the question. 

I agree with other Colleagues ,researchers should explain the reasons for their objections to questions or answers posed. 

Of course, the clarification is a MUST. I tend to give an explanation for all possible situations in order to eliminate possible miss-understanding. But, if you do not get a response dear @Qasim, do not regret. Keep the discussion ongoing.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights  (1949)- Article 19 states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Research Gate represents this article in a true way. However, the huge number of RG members is bound to have effects on viewing questions & answers since there is a heterogeneous mixture of persons. I think that scholars ought to be mature enough to state why they object something in a scientific transparent way.

While answering a question, every RG member has the right to see the question from both pro and against. They need to reason out their view point with their knowledge, skills and experience. It would be better if they quote relevant articles or data to substantiate their views. I would prefer to up vote positive in both the cases, to motivate both sides of reasoning. Research needs to be unbiased, to learn and contribute more and more.

I believe RG is a hub for knowledge, exchange of information, ideas and collaboration among scientists, researchers, educators and learners. Therefore freedom of expression , either to ask or forward an idea are tenets of such activities. The participants will decide when to avoid or not to avoid a question or a comment from a member than the site deletes.  

Dear All,

I think it is necessary to introduce and explain the subject of a thread and also to clarify thoroughly it.  Many subjects are complicated and their area is too wide. Most of us have a poor English, and some threads are difficult to understand. The introduction expresses also the resolution and politeness of the thread starting person. I mention that the thread owner should somehow moderate and summarise the development of the thread. Unfortunately, many question owners do not take care of their threads.    

Dear All,

I think it is necessary to introduce and explain the subject and  of a thread and also to clarify thoroughly it.  Many subjects are complicated and their area is too wide. Most of us have a poor English, and some threads are difficult to understand. The introduction expresses also the resolution and politeness of the thread starting person. I mention that the thread owner should somehow moderate and summarise the development of the thread. Unfortunately, many question owners do not take care of their threads.   Certainly, answers, comments, objections – all aspects of contributions - should be explained and proved.  

Dear colleagues,

It's a very interesting question, where i agree with Subhash and al. that Colleagues, researchers on Researchgate should explain the reasons for their objections to questions or answers posed. 

Dear All

I agree with you in all that you pointed out to it. But when a colleague uses " Down vote" to an question or answer, I think it is necessary to explain the reasons for it.

@ Qasim

Yes, of course ..

Yes, I do think there should be justification to support an objection to a question/answer, which should from the relevant literatuto inlcude current news items or the researcher's experience to give balance to the objection.

May be we do not need objections or any rejections. We need to share our knowledge with others. It does not matter which level our friends are. The more the group grows the more we will enjoy it. Even the big ones will commit mistakes. If we learn from our students, let alone from a phd researchgate member. 

RG should enforce a mechanism that when a person down vote an answer or question, s/he should be prompted to provide reason / justification so that his or her explanation can contribute to knowledge (this is for accountability).  Merely down vote without explanation is only create doubt on other answers / questions & not really contributing to knowledge sharing.  Also RG should  curb anyone from simply down vote anyone's comments for sabotage purpose just because s/he might not like the other person.

They have to do what is done with positive answers. If say good OK. If I say may be I have to hide. Most of the times, man  hide because  he thinks he is doing something wrong. Is that a mistake to have a different point of view? Was science ever done with people hiding somewhere? We have people here fighting, say no to drugs which sell 26 billion dollars a year. Or an activity which make 97 billion a year i n the United States Only. Why to be hide from friends who asked you a question? Until the day RG does not fix it. I will just not use it. I hope we all do the same.

Dear Qasim: There must be freedom to agree and to disagree with any opinion, and there should be always space to learn. Nobody is the owner of full knowledge. Unintentional errors are always present in scientific and academic community and make part of research development and learning context. In my opinion, any true Researcher or Professor knows this; he/she corrects with humility his/her own errors and the errors of the others and is never afraid to err. In my opinion personal vanities, personal issues and personal attacks are not suitable for a scientific and academic environment. Intentional errors or attempts of manipulation to induce errors in others are a pestilence, are a serious illness that must be treated and that must be evidenced by all means possible. I did never down-vote so far, but I did not understand yet some cases of panic with down votes. Some questions or answers deserve it?

Not at all some understanding. If someone has objections there are two possibilties, go away and stay silent or inform about your objections. The latter is my favourite behaviour.

I do have the same choice as dear @Hanno. The worse thing is non-answered question that is supposed to be answered. 

That is it Hanno. Besides being more ethical we have the right not to discuss all subjects  or follow all the approaches possible to treat a question.

Good, Dear Hanno.

Dear Markovic,

in first order RG is a mirror for societal relations, of course in a scientific environment.

Dear Hanno,

Can't we say --- RG is a scientific mirror in social environment!

Dear Subhash,

I´m not sure that all actions here in RG are really scientific. So I would prefer my order of items "societal relations in scientific environment", or if you prefer "societal mirror in scientific surrounding". The main reason is, we are just discussing the bad behaviour of downvoting, that´s a pure psychological and societal problem, no science at all.

It's OK, Dear Hanno!

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Words are powerful. When I make mistakes I just try to come back and clarify what I meant.|               --------   Soulja Boy.

 “A scientist's aim in a discussion with his colleagues is not to persuade, but to clarify.”                    ----------    Leo Szilard

Let us make a compromise dear @Hanno and @Subhash :  social and scientific relations in scientific environment! Is it good enough?

Dear  George Stoica,

Agreed! You have the point.

Dear All,

The occurrence and activity of down-voters is an old nuisance for correct and decent RG participants. This is an irritation built in the system, which simulates somehow the reality. Thinking a bit on the issue, it would be strange to be in an almost perfect and absolutely faultless environment.   Down-voters represent the necessary feedback to the outer world. They are a signal meaning do not be satisfied you are temporarily in an artificial environment.

Another aspect of this issue:

The anonymous down-voters are afraid of ideas (new or not usual ideas or truth) which differ from their accepted patterns. They do not – cannot - evaluate new information but judge them according to their prejudices and feelings.  They do not allow even themselves the right of thinking because they feel fear the changes and the future.

A down-voter cheats, cheats even him/herself.

They are prisoners of their own prejudices.

This is their punishment.

In summary, a down-voter commits more harm for him/herself than for the public. We should give him a chance to learn the other side of the issue and his point. By the way, I think, the down-voters are exclusively men but this only a feeling.

Of course, I agree with Hanno, Subhash and Ljubimir: this is not a scientific issue, this is merely a condition influencing our comfort and so touches our personnel milieu and scientific performance too.