Downvotes should contribute positively to the knowledge discovery, creation and development process by giving fellow researchers feedback information on the perceived negatives in an answer. In order to prevent glib, flippant and otherwise unreasoned downvotes and so ensure that a reasoned contribution is being made, the downvote protocols should therefore include navigating a process of researcher feedback and independent confirmation before being registered as a downvote.
Recommended Two-Step Downvote Process:
a, first select the explicit reason for downvote from a menu of options including an open-ended 'other reason' (this will also serve to give researcher being downvoted reasoned feedback for the downvote)
b. at a minimum downvotes should only be registered after a second confirmatory downvote action by an independent researcher which supports the reason selected / given by 'a.'
Does current downvote process aid the knowledge development process ?
In my personal opinion, anonymous downvote is not contributing in anyway to knowledge development process. Agreed with what you'd suggested to operationalize the downvote process to make it more meaningful & purposeful. Hope RG will listen & consider your suggestion. Wishing you all the best.
I agree with Han, Upvote motivates and a pull system to interact more towards learn-share-contribute. Let us leverage on the positive power which can help in research coordination.
Not at all it's negative attitude which should be removed from RG
constructive critiques is more useful
I am fully agree with Dr. Mohamed A Yassin that the negative attitude which should be removed from RG.
I think there is really no problem with anonymous down-vote, but the lack of arguments! It is exactly the lack of arguments which serves as ground and justification for the anonymity.
In such a condition down-voting is really cowardice and mediocrity.
I agree with Carlos on the matter of anonymity. It would be analogous to a blind review. However, there must be reasoned, logical, rational feedback via the down-voting process that communicates the nature and/or type of disagreement to the researcher.
Otherwise, the assessment of the quality of the down-vote becomes impossible
Thanks Carlos & Silburn for your clarification. One of the statement from my post above should rephrased to "anonymous downvote without clarification is not contributing in anyway to knowledge development process."
I striking fact is that down-votes discussions do not invite many researchers here on RG. Sillabub's invitation is one of them. Along time there have been a number of other invitations. Always with little participation. Is that a symptomatic?
Interesting observation Carlos.
Lets "re-share" / "rebroadcast" / "retweet" to our various RG follower-networks for wider participation, more discussion, more diverse ideas and contributions .
The aim on this journey is to get down-votes to qualitatively enhance the development of knowledge
There are many Q&A links already available.....
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_downvote_an_answer_Why?_sg=YCoMB4Gspv3py7-L0H5n5QgoYcU5rYbCCbHXiK9maNNFdl2foeXi7B_uf9felPoS.Y1SifGVOyB_F4KFneMA-e63mu5STeFQnvE8wu_wd3uGsrWwWcDGxbn7hwSWd4h8b.thA_Oq8ULaeRgACTlTTSCmBSftjFkjuU8HEUehDNETwSubI6sxOQtntW2qdOYwyi&_tpcectx=search
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_I_can_find_a_researcher_that_downvote_my_answer_and_question?_sg=BxeoVbJXlegNKl-IIVv8_KPq2m0riCWFg3CaEhMMQeV5rOlTOE7BRRJJZ_QOGPOg.0t-D1dSKBSQ7NHBWx4vydm-MBPWMZy-ZB9aNkjwkhWf5P61r2jTgX-q2o_ogsBZZ.jhNPGAs3brWEFyCbCvQ7gEyfQ9N9VDYgqByf_cd8S6OzApSzknXQeTZU7Y5Z6jEH&_tpcectx=search
Dear Mr. Clarke,
I was also bullied on RG, but I think we should ignore the downvotes. I think the more we mention the downvoting in our discussions, the more we make those downvoters feel glorified and powerful. There are many others who enjoy our questions and responses. So let's not allow someone's negativity to spoil this venue where we can share our thoughts and experiences in addition to knowledge and expertise, and learn from each other.
Sincerely,
Cameen
Of course not, dear Silburn. You cannot debate with an anonymous person. Down votes should not be anonymous but rather be eliminated. They go against the idea of enlightened and open debate, which is what RG proposes to be: open.
Best regards, Lilliana
Appreciate feedback Lilliana,
I like using the analogy of the current review process, even among open journals.
Two Principles:
1. Anonymous but not silent
2. Blind but not non-communicative nor non-constructive
Agree with you wholeheartedly that down-voter should contribute to the enlightenment of us all
It's a base way of hurt somebody, underestimating somebody's self-esteem, and removing somebody's score.It can't be scientific, because it's not constructive for discussion,if an opponent does it behind somebody's back.A blind review requires deep arguments.Otherwise it's a biased opinion.
Irina,
I have been in discussions where for the entire discourse no participant communicated or otherwise indicated a negative nor a disagreement, yet downvotes appeared on the thread.
I have also participated in very honest, open, strident discussions where many have openly articulated strong opposition and disagreements and yet not invoked a downvote; they simply don't vote at all.
On other threads still, one sees both written disagreements and downvotes and only by assumption, associate the opposers with the downvote.
Fair feedback demands that the reasons of disagreement be openly stated in the down-vote process; otherwise as you rightly say it is a biased action not intended to advance scientific clarification.
I totally agree with you, dear Silburn. Vehemence is something people criticize, despite the fact that maybe, what we need at this point are good arguments enriched by vehemence.
Thank you for daring to be downvoted here!
Warm regards, Lilliana
Dear Ivo,
Well said !!
Couldn't agree with you more. Let all the ideas contend in a spirit of truth-seeking in an open honest fora
While agreeing with the arguments put forward by Ivo Carneiro de Sousa (as always, an invaluable contributor), I must say that I can understand the existence of the up-vote button, given its influence in the increase of the RG Score (which basically is a way of building reputation in this social network). It is, thus, one extra incentive for researchers to take some of their time to post more informed, in-depth contributions in their answers to other researchers' doubts. That way, we are actively encouraging each other to give better answers, thus (presumably) raising the quality level of the debate.
I believe that the down-vote could be eliminated from RG, given that it only serves to replicate the shallow logic of more "mainstream" social networks. If I disagree with someone, as a researcher, I should reply, showcasing my arguments against someone else's arguments, not by simply clicking a "dislike" button.
It would be much more logical (for me, at least) to have a system more like "Click here if this answer was useful for you". That way, we would not need to have several replies simply stating "I agree" and things of the sort (for there would be an up-vote option), but we would be forced to write when we disagree, not simply click "down-vote".
Dear colleagues
Greetings of a New time! New thought!!
Did you follow the statistics of this question?!126 views, 14 followers and 24 answers
analyze the figures!
Jai Ho
Regards
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Scientific Research