Could these metrics be subject to Campbell’s Law, which states that the more a quantitative indicator is used for decision making, the more likely it will be subject to corruption and abuse, thus distorting the processes the indicator is intended to monitor?
This is an interesting question, but I don't think that use or abuse of the indicators can distort the metric. Surely the RG metrics are evaluated according to a straightforward algorithm? What the answers mean to any observer, of course, is a different issue. But nevertheless it would be interesting to know if RG metrics are taken into account in job applications. I doubt it, personally. Comments?
Thanks Tony, Just to be clear, I was asking about the capacity for researchers to manipulate their data from which the RG metrics are generated. Cheers, Matt
I am a full tenured professor, so I will not have further promotions. However I actively participate in ResearchGate "Question" discussions and post every new paper IN PART because I like the prestige that comes with many people downloading my papers (over 10,000) and my high RG score (higher than 85% of RG members). I list my "as high as" RG score on my CV. As Tony said, people can make of that what they will.
In weeks where I receive a higher-than-ever-before RG score, I post a notice to my Facebook. for the same reason, I announce my Google Scholar citations.
But I do not consider this to be manipulation of the system. The RG scores track my activity and interest expressed in my work in ResearchGate. It is a strategy I have selected to pursue, as part of my personal "brand." But it is not manipulation.
I should say that I also enjoy the discussions, particularly to the extent that I can mentor less experienced researchers, which I think every senior faculty member should do.
Thank you Tony for your thoughtful reply. Manipulation to boost an RG score might include "gaming the system" e.g. answering lots of questions with non-answers (like "can you please clarify your question?"), or, another one I've noticed, listing several versions of the same paper to attract extra reads, or creating research 'papers' out of existing or slightly modified published work (I have found a few of them). At the more serious end it might involve researchers putting pressure on junior colleagues for co-authorship, though this clearly goes further than issues of improving their RG scores and covers research indices more broadly (though the result of "guest authorship" is these researchers then have more papers to post on RG than they would otherwise).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics