It appears that most researchers disagree that in its current form RG factor can become a useful metric to help estimate scientific reputation. The most common concerns are too much emphasis on questions and answers [1,2] and discrimination agains certain areas of science [3,4].
Of course I understand that no metric can be a sole factor defining the scientific reputation, but some metrics can still be useful when combined with other evidence. How would you change the way RG factor is implemented to make it a metric that would be useful when evaluating scientists?
[1]https://www.researchgate.net/post/Whats_this_RG_Score_nonsense
[2]https://www.researchgate.net/post/I_am_concerned_with_the_use_of_the_RG_score_as_a_reliable_indicator_for_the_relevance_and_impact_of_a_scientists_work
[3]https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_the_RG_score_be_dumped_into_the_dustbin_of_scientific_errors_and_erroneous_concepts_see_attached_paper_with_the_full_scientometric_data
[4]https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_feel_the_RG_Score_is_meaningful_at_all
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Citations