Michael, I applaud your bravery in asking this question. I am not alone either. Many people thought the same ...

Here is how I benefited from RG discussions:

1) When I write an article, sometimes I get a negative feedback that is SHOCKING to myself and the other co-authors. Although four reviewers might give rave reviews to my submission, it is that one reviewer that crushes the submission ! And, the objection is usually very simple. One little detail ... Because, I thought too much like MYSELF, and, didn't see it from somebody else's eye. RG helps in the sense that, when you bring a question for discussion, you get some response that you never expected. I use it to figure out how my idea is being perceived, and answer that objection before the paper submission ! So, I don't get that one negative reaction that kills the paper ! I have 2, 3 cases of this ...

2) Sometimes, through the discussions, some contributor brings up something that is so out of the ordinary that, it sparks an idea for a paper. I have one case of this. It is in electrical engineering, but, it allowed me to figure out a great educational circuit idea, which I will be submitting to the upcoming circuit conference ! I would have never been able to figure it out alone ...

3) Sometimes, you think that a question is very hot, and relevant. You ask the question, and you barely get any response. You know that, this is a topic that is ambiguous and will cause confusion, rather than being a hot topic. So, you don't submit that to a conference or a journal. This happens a lot. You think a paper will have "legs" and it doesn't ... Some paper you thought would be a dead one catches fire ... The trick is always the same: Think like THEM, not like YOU !

These are from my real RG experiences ...

Very interesting question Michael, and certainly one that has crossed my mind before...

I don't think there would be a standard way of doing it, but it would be worthwhile differentiating whether the influential idea was following discussion/comment from one person or after a huge discussion and contribution from multiple researchers (e.g. equipoise).. the former would be straightforward in acknowledgement, the latter is where i think this discussion will progress..

i think one may acknowledge the thread and give a reference.. e.g.

"The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of multiple contributions of researchers in an online discussion forum(a) which helped inspire the idea for this study."

a. Multiple contributors. In Brückner M, How do you acknowledge valuable answers by RG peers in your papers? [internet]. ResearchGate 2013 [cited 2013 Oct 26]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_you_acknowledge_valuable_answers_by_RG_peers_in_your_papers

this is just a suggestion of how it can be done and is open to ideas/critique by other esteemed researchers...

regards, raza

I think Raza has a very good point. On the other hand, if one or two of the scholar contributing in a thread are giving the main ideas, the other posibility is to contact them and keep with the discussion privately and give a direct acknowledge to these scholars.

I agree with Ernesto and Raza, however, there is no standard way and you can do research alone and acknowledgements is one way. It is like when you submitt a paper to journal and a referee gives you a very good idea or comment that helps you to highly improve you work and paper.

Good comments from all so far - and a tricky one to answer. Personally, I am offering advice 'for free' in RG - so would not expect anyone to acknowledge my responses or ideas.

@Dean, would you refuse to be cited? The origin of the question is to give credit to colleagues who have inspired your thoughts and your work. In the same way students acknowledge their advisors in reports, theses, etc. It's too early to draw a line here, but the first responses were positive, which I appreciate.

@Raza, I appreciate your detailed comments very much. I would probably not go so far to cite the whole thing (=thread); after all, we don't 'publish' after a peer review process here ;). Why not using a footnote (I do this for Wikipedia articles, if necessary, so they don't appear in the reference sections) or a passing mention of RG in parentheses in Acknowledgements.

Hi Michael, I wouldn't worry to much about the citing, you can find advice here [ http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2009/10/how-to-cite-twitter-and-facebook-part-ii.html ] from Chelsea Lee the APA Style Advisor. Facebook and RG have a similar structure. the 194th Edition should provide and "official" view on this. Otherwise cite using the rules for Pers. Comm. or if you prefer you can acknowledge a contribution in an authors note at the end of the text.

On the topic of whether it is appropriate to acknowledge, that depends on the topic and the publication. I would agree with Dean though, I try to give the best advice / contribution I can. Sometimes just in a conversational mode, sometimes an advisory mode from a position of some knowledge. But always given freely. That I think is what makes RG work so well.

Hi Matt and Dean,

I would agree with Michael here.. even though the intentions of providing advice are very generous and selfless, but still it seems unfair on part of a researcher not to acknowledge a significant contribution towards the conception of an idea...

the way it is acknowledged may differ as each person sees fit, but if i do not state the fact that the idea for a research project is not totally mine, then I am taking the credit for someone else's work...

I think it would all depend on the content of the contribution. Some answer to the questions in RG are mere suggestions on possible research alternatives, hints, etc. On the other hand, others are full blown explanations with citations and a reference gathering that would constitute part of the work in a publication.

I would strongly advise on citing the latter.

Michael - no I wouldn't refuse to be cited. There is a saying that 'any publicity is good publicity'. That said, I would prefer that it was positive citing - but can respect that not everything I suggest or write will resonate with everyone.

Good response from Arturo - to me, no-one' should feel compelled to acknowledge me if I offer 'general' advice - and most of what I do on RG - is just that. I think that if I had a 'top secret' idea that I wanted to 'sound off' against other scholars - I would be more inclined to approach them directly than on such a public forum as RG

Very nice and thought provoking question Michael Brückner. All the responses are useful. I agree with Raza Sayyed and Matt Holland's views.

Your question itself has the answer in it.

"We could use the acknowledgement section of the paper to show the origin of our ideas" That's the best way to acknowledge in my opinion.

Thanks for the important discussion topic, Michael. RG is becoming a place -- almost like a virtual Agora -- for electronic scholarly communication. I cite my sources (articles, books, presentations, etc.) in my postings to add more academic credibility. Many citation standards (Chicago, MLA, APA) do have designated areas for informal communications, and you can cite them as "personal communication" or blog postings. As others, I also do not object to be cited, but most of us on RG share that position. However, it would not go against any ethical standard to approach the author or source of those ideas or statements you wish to cite, and clarify them. In response, you may even get additional pointers to support your thesis.

The style guides are out of date, and do not know about ResearchGate.

There are 2 different ways of acknowledging input used from Researchgaters:

1. If you have corresponded with a poster via ResearchGate mail (or Gmail etc):

Personal communication.

2. If you have seen a posting on a topic on ResearchGate:

Public communication.

The reason for these differing is that the first is private and not Googleable; the second is far from private!

The same is true for LinkedIn, which has messaging, group discussion, and a public messaging forum. I have looked through APA and Chicago--neither mention these two, let alone the distinction of private and public communication within a particular community. Some of the guidelines for discussion forums (open/closed group), blogs (public, closed group), and emails (private) are broad enough to let you plug in the information. If you use EndNote, you can even create a special template for ResearchGate if you frequently cite. I wonder though: how much primary data is available to researchers (unless the research topic is an analysis of scholarly communication itself) in these discussions on RG to make it compelling to cite private/public communication as a primary source.

RG allows authors to post published and unpublished works and provide space for discussing those works. If the author posts data that was not published elsewhere, makes that explicit in a posting, and offers clarifications, that is a very good reason to cite RG even within the limited framework of existing style guides. By the time the new citation guides come out, there will be new scholarly communities with yet newer forms of private/public/group-level communications, and hopefully by then, there will be more search engines (for real scholarly work) than just Google.

Michael, I applaud your bravery in asking this question. I am not alone either. Many people thought the same ...

Here is how I benefited from RG discussions:

1) When I write an article, sometimes I get a negative feedback that is SHOCKING to myself and the other co-authors. Although four reviewers might give rave reviews to my submission, it is that one reviewer that crushes the submission ! And, the objection is usually very simple. One little detail ... Because, I thought too much like MYSELF, and, didn't see it from somebody else's eye. RG helps in the sense that, when you bring a question for discussion, you get some response that you never expected. I use it to figure out how my idea is being perceived, and answer that objection before the paper submission ! So, I don't get that one negative reaction that kills the paper ! I have 2, 3 cases of this ...

2) Sometimes, through the discussions, some contributor brings up something that is so out of the ordinary that, it sparks an idea for a paper. I have one case of this. It is in electrical engineering, but, it allowed me to figure out a great educational circuit idea, which I will be submitting to the upcoming circuit conference ! I would have never been able to figure it out alone ...

3) Sometimes, you think that a question is very hot, and relevant. You ask the question, and you barely get any response. You know that, this is a topic that is ambiguous and will cause confusion, rather than being a hot topic. So, you don't submit that to a conference or a journal. This happens a lot. You think a paper will have "legs" and it doesn't ... Some paper you thought would be a dead one catches fire ... The trick is always the same: Think like THEM, not like YOU !

These are from my real RG experiences ...

wonderful insights Tolga, Ian and Arjun.. Thank you for sharing them..

I share with Tolga in that the world does not revolve around ME; it is much more the other way. However, is it something to be frowned upon if I contribute with something personal perhaps even unique perspective to the discourse? Perhaps, this is more acceptable in the Humanities than in the hard sciences? Even there, a unique perspective and the courage to publish (sometimes in contradiction or opposition to official or widely held views) can open new doors to knowledge. The idea is contribution, but as I have been experiencing with the "Digital Humanities and Archives" Topic discussions, some questions get immediate attention, some do not at all. These questions are not like a bottle of wine -- the longer you keep them unopened, the better they are. I just delete them after some time. For some other questions, it is OK to wait a little longer and contribute to other discussions. We are humans after all. Either way, engaging in discussions helps especially when you are writing an article or a book. Michael, and everyone else in this discussion -- thanks, this was an eye-opener :-).

If the companionship (but not content) received from RG inspires you, there is no need to acknowledge it, any more than the music that inspired you to get down to writing.

RG has been Ok in receiving technical help. But, I certainly wouldn't list it as the most useful part of RG. It is the fact that, it allows you to put your ideas out there and gauge the initial reaction. Furthermore, this is a reaction from an INTERNATIONAL community !!! People pay lots of money on FOCUS GROUPS etc ... to test their idea. Here, on RG, its free !!. People love to tell you what they think.

Based on this, I started asking questions about some potential research I am planning to do ... to get the initial reaction. What is more interesting (and, counter-intuitive) is this :

** a) The reaction from people that have expertise in that field,

** b) The reaction from people that do not.

*** If (a) is good, and (b) is bad, then, you know that, your idea is technically good, but, ambiguous to somebody with no expertise in the field.

*** If (a) and (b) are both good, this idea is a keeper :)

*** If both are bad, focus on a different idea :)

*** If (a) is bad, (b) is good, it sounds cool, but, technically flawed.

Why would you take into account (b) ? Simple ... No more than 50-70% of the reviewers of your journal or grant proposals will be from that exact same field. It is crucially important for (a) and (b) to be good ...

RG is priceless for that.

Tolga, I think this is a sensible approach to pre-assess the reception of your ideas. Thanks for sharing!

@Tolga, you have shared a convincing strategy, which could even be automated to find worthwhile research ideas by crawling through relevant threads, checking answers and reputations of the posters (could well be the topic of another thread asking experts and non-experts).

This is turning out to be a great discussion because of your generosity to share your thoughts here. And, this is also what I tell my students: don't focus on your iphone/Android/whatever device but on the content that you can share. If you exchange your hardware, each of you simply ends up with one device, but if you exchange your ideas, you end up with two ideas.

Forums such as RG are a 'new' entity, in regard to giving them room as credible 'evidence' in a paper. You can quite easily throw the line 'I was chatting with a colleague the other day and they asked ....' into a presentation and it is accepted as something that we all do (& thus relevant). If you mentioned it in a paper, it currently has the (mainstream) credibility of something like a blog .... something that is not of sufficient 'rigour' for genuine consideration, regardless of who said what. The Royal Society report (2012) into openness in scientific publication acknowledges that we don't all wear white coats, write with a quill or only discuss issues whilst sat in a stuffed leather chair drinking scotch. I have now made a definite decision to include ideas from blogs, forums etc. as they are often offered by people who are considered 'credible' when they say something in 'real' literature or the confines of their profession, so why not in a virtual exchange forum. Regardless of their credibility though, forums are a great place to gauge mood and get a range of opinions.

Would I attribute specific points & names: blogs - yes (you wrote it & put it out there), forums such as RG - no (I may offer something, but it is not done with any intent to 'publish', even though it can be freely accessed). I would cite RG discussions in general terms & only if they were substantial or offered a particular insight. I would list them in a similar way to personal correspondence (if it was a conversation I was involved in) or as electronic material / website (if I stumbled across it in a search). Either way, I would never attribute a name to a comment as I think it breaks people's (unwritten) trust .... but don't quote me on that !

@Michael, Jane, Nicholas, Arjun, et al :) Thank you for your comments ...

I am comparing a) PUBLISHING A PAPER, b) posting it on RG and heavily discussing it ... In both cases, if you have some permanent record to post, datasets, etc ... Google's SPIDERs will instantly index it and it will show up on Google Scholar ... So, it is your creation in both cases ...

=========================

I guess the "new wave" of disseminating your ideas is DYNAMIC DISTRIBUTION ... Let me expand on this ...

=========================

Publishing in a journal, conference, wherever it is, is a STATIC way of disseminating it, and it is totally fine ... Because, people that are interested in your research will eventually dig through the web (or, journal archives, IEEE, etc ...) and will find it . This is what research is all about ...

=========================

However, the modern-day alternative is sites like RG, where you DYNAMICALLY disseminate your idea. The way I see, there are two issues with dissemination in general: 1) OVER-INFORMATION, where, your information gets lost real fast ... So, you need to get it in front of people and discuss it ... I know that, at least 2, 3 of my papers got a lot more attention ever since I joined RG. 2) the SPEED. It takes a YEAR to publish in an IEEE journal. Of course, some journals have a 2 month turn-around time, but, that's still a lot. ... And, for conferences, including the due dates, the time it takes to submit, get accepted, blah blah ... you are looking at 6 months to a year !!!

How about RG ? : 10 minutes ... If people do not like it, they will not read it ... If they do, then, go ahead and spend the time, and make a journal out of it ... or a conference submission ... Also, RG provides an excellent CITEABLE way to post datasets. Much better than posting it on your own site ... At least, it is a reasonably OFFICIAL way to post ...

Another nice thing about the sites like RG is TARGETing. You only post things in their appropriate community. This idea is identical to having societies like, CAS (Circuit and Systems Society), SIGARCH (Architecture Community) ... The only difference, you can join and quit a society instantly, and quit if this is not the appropriate society.

Isn't it fair to think that, this SPEED will create even more OVER-INFORMATION ? Of course, whenever something new gets introduced, some problem comes with it ... EMAIL was a great invention, compared to MAIL. But, it introduced SPAM. We just have to deal with it ...

@Tolga Soyata:..

Sometimes, through the discussions, some contributor brings up something that is so out of the ordinary that, it sparks an idea for a paper.

Yes, what you have observed happens often enough and with considerable intensity, and that makes continued participation in RG worthwhile.

Tolga, you are touching on the very essence of the paradigm shift in scholarly communication (from static to dynamic, from print to electronic, from centralized to decentralized, etc.), and depending on the discipline, speed is essential to dissemination. I have participated in such un-conferences like those organized by THATCamp and one of the best examples of dynamic dissemination involves presenting your topic in a discussion, which is mediated in groups after some modifications to your topic.

However, does speed allow adequate time for peer review? Surely, we can run ideas off on RG, but is the feedback equivalent to quality? There is a potential for communities of practice to establish peer-review in RG (perhaps organized into groups focused on disciplines), but not all disciplines might be covered if there weren't enough reviewers. This is a matter of logistics and priorities since many RG members are faculty, researchers, archivists, librarians, editors, and technologists whose involvement in RG maybe secondary to their jobs. Also, they may already be editing for another publication, which may or may not present a conflict of interest. Don't misunderstand me: there are a lot of well-meaning and very helpful people in RG. For informal feedback, the RG community is excellent, but it may be just a matter of some time for formal peer-review or referee groups to form. Who knows: one day, RG may start it own interdisciplinary online publication with peer- reviewers who have high RG score and impact points.

@Arjun , @James, I am glad to see you pick up on my comments about DYNAMIC dissemination.

DYNAMIC idea dissemination is a great ALTERNATIVE for this era. However, it will never replace the STATIC dissemination. In the end, STATIC has been tested for 100's of years and it works ! (possibly 1000's) !

If DYNAMIC was a candidate for REPLACING the STATIC dissemination, there wouldn't be such awards at certain symposiums called TEST OF THE TIME AWARD. They are given 25, 30 years after the introduction of the original idea.

====================

STATIC dissemination is meant to be there for a lllooooonnnngggg time (possibly, FOREVER) ! You can still get Euler's and Gauss's original work, as long as you can read their language :) Even if you can't, there will be many translations of it, from very good scholars, with extreme care to keep the originality !

I guess, the best example of a STATIC distribution is Euclid's ELEMENTS ! How can such a STATIC content live 2,500 years :) I am nominating Euclid for the RG TEST OF THE TIME AWARD :)

====================

DYNAMIC dissemination is perfect for testing the INITIAL REACTION. Remember, you post something to the discussion thread, and it is literally OLD within days, may be weeks ! But, that initial reaction might give you many clues about the LONGEVITY of the idea ...

@Tolga, thanks for clarifying the dynamic-static difference. I also think they mean to co-exist but depending on the field, one may be more dominant than the other. If you follow the TED, HASTAC, THATCamp, etc. crowds, for instance, I think they are also a good example of dynamic in the sense that you are describing. So perhaps, the paradigm expansion is a better term to describe scholarly communication whereas paradigm shift implies replacement. Could there be a generational dimension also (digital natives and gen X-ers / baby boomers, 50-plus)?

@Michael and all: Could we make an acknowledgement at a formal publication to somebody who really helped us and whom we met here in RG?

@Demetris: Whether the very helpful colleague we met is across the passage or across the Pacific, we should recognise that help in our Acknowledgements section. Strangely, how we met the person takes up too many words of our word count and is seldom mentioned.

Under scientific standards it should not be a question at all to acknowledge the person who contributed a substantial idea, "personal communication" or "helpful discussion", but I know many authors even full professors in science in Munich, may not have learned these standards. Some plagiarists in biophysics do it,perhaps, just by purpose to pretend a really good idea or even exclusive collaborative project would be started by their own or their own students - without my three years of work as guest PI in a biophysics lab and just overtaking all of my laboratory secrets - without coauthorship or even acknowledgment of the idea, although first or last authorship should just be my decision, and especially after year-long pioniering work without payment - just to get a thought to be sure Science, Nature or Cell paper. So, I would and do acknowledge critical readers of my manuscripts - and would not hesitate to acknowledge substantial ideas from ResearchGate, if used in a project - but I don't think one should specifically mention RG as source, since the source is the person who shared an idea, not RG.

An example: As a consequence of our discussion on RG we (participants) have written a manuscript in which the participants are co-authors. The circumstances of idea development have been mentioned in the introduction. After publishing this contribution hopefully RG members will be able to read it.

@Robert - 'I don't think one should specifically mention RG as source, since the source is the person who shared an idea, not RG.'

So would you not acknowledge it as something like: 'Blogs, D., 2013. My thoughts on something. Research Gate. Retrieved on ------ . Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_you_acknowledge_valuable_answers_by_RG_peers_in_your_papers? (If you had specifically sought their permission to quote (& name them)

or simply in the abstract:

'It has been suggested by many on popular forums (e.g. Research Gate 2013), that .....' In particular, it was suggested (amongst other things), that .... . You would then list something like 'Research Gate, 2013. How do you acknowledge valuable answers by RG peers in your papers?. Retrieved on ------ . Available from: https://www.researchgate.net. This makes any attempt at retrieval follow the same degree of open access that anyone would normally have & does not subject an individual contributor to scrutiny beyond that which they can reasonably expect from such a platform.

If however you just meant that you would not credit RG as having any direct contribution, I entirely agree. You do cite a journal as a source of an authors work though, so I think you also have to name the forum platform of any alternative medium.

@Nicholas - you got me completely wrong! I wrote

"...- and would not hesitate to acknowledge substantial ideas from ResearchGate, if used in a project - but I don't think one should specifically mention RG as source, since the source is the person who shared an idea, not RG."

- To clarify this: I would acknowledge the person who had a substantial idea, but not that it was contributed via RG.

I also agree with Arturo. Depending on the contribution to your later publication this can be indicated in the footnotes at the given location e.g. "I am grateful to XX for providing me this (bibliographical) reference / these data or argument to me." More serious contributions (full review of your paper and comment on it) should certainly be indicated in the beginning of your paper.

Certainly I will recommend my students to use Research Gate to get in touch with peers for competent and interested comments.

I certainly agree with Michael Bruckner's proposal to mention the help of an RG peer in the acknowledgements of a publication when such help has been valuable. This respond to the criterion of intellectual honesty, the same as that which calls for the proper citation of previous work on the same subject, in the list of references.

So far I did not have publications, where RGate peers can be acknowledged. Nevertheless, in the future, I think that including authors of the valuable comments/suggestions/proposals/data into Acknowledgements section of the paper is perfect way to get then acknowledged. Moreover, if their input is really big, ask about co-authorship could be possible, too.

@Robert,

do you know, how long all this stuff will be visible on the RGate? Many journals require some "stable" links, if you refer to the website.

And, of course, acknowledgement is to the author of comment, not to RGate itself.

I found I was answering so many questions of a RG poster that I invited her to research with me and today our paper is ready to be submitted. The paper does not mention ResearchGate, because we could just as easily have met in a common room or at a conference, and there is no space for such trivia in a paper.

After three weeks and 40+ valuable answers I'd like to sum up your comments and feedback.

Almost all researchers, who have experienced some important help by peers here on RG, feel the need to acknowledge them in some way; be it by mentioning their names in the acknowledgement section of their paper or by actually giving a reference. This is seen by many as ethical behaviour colleagues should follow in their academic work.

There is also some feedback on mentioning RG as the source of an idea (or other form of contribution to a paper). This was not my intention when asking my question, I have to admit; rather it was about giving credit to the individual peers themselves (within a semi-public environment as RG, which is not peer-reviewed in the traditional sense). So the feedback refusing mentioning RG in the acknowledgement might have been triggered by poor wording of the original question. Sorry for that.

I'm sure we won't cease to be inspired by creative answers and occasionally by heated discussions. I'm glad to be reconfirmed that we're not on piracy here, where they say "Take what you can, give nothing back" - if I remember the Pirate's Code correctly ;).

If you posted something on RG, and received a very valuable response from one specific person (may be two), that contributed heavily to one of your papers, it is polite to put him/her in the Acknowledgments section of the paper. I have one case of that, so, this is not just hypothetical. I see some people putting "personal communications with Dr. XYZ," in their citations, which is a different style. I prefer the Acknowledgments section ... But, of course, this is a personal preference. The interesting thing is that, you don't even have a paper of that person XYZ to cite ! So, this is really not going to help that person's H INDEX or TOTAL CITATIONS or anything. It is simply academic courtesy to acknowledge that person ... In the end, academia is the business of creating and selling ideas and knowledge. It is always a good practice to give the credit to somebody else if appropriate ...

One more fact, that is important ... When you acknowledge that person in the context I mentioned above, you are actually giving credit to RG too. If RG didn't exist, this mechanism for you to get that idea wouldn't exist. So, RG should be credited as an institution too ...

agree, RG should be somehow mentioned, but the person first of all

@Nur, just curious. Would you acknowledge the contributors' names in a future (potential) paper.

@Nur, if you take a look at previous answers in this discussion, you'll see some ways to either acknowledge (in the Acknowledgements section of your paper) or directly cite (as Personal Communication or referencing the appropriate thread here on ResearchGate).

Dear Professor Michael,

I think that all the journals should follow the citations / references from scholar.google.com/citations.

But I think some of them not found in such a way.

@Mohammad, I'm sure most of us would be happy with all journals (and conferences) following the same reference style, at least in the same research areas. Unfortunately, this is not the case. But reference managers (e.g. Endnote) make it a bit easier to cite, if you use Word as text processing software; they easily convert from APA to Chicago and other reference styles. The remaining problem is that some journals use 'house rules' that differ slightly from the standards.

@Michael,

and this makes me crazy.

Year in the end; year after the author, dot; year in parentheses, colon; year and comma, etc atc.

Don't you think this is too much?

It can be that 'pedantic' Linas - but I find that most of the journals that I submit to have good copy-editors and type-setters that sort out most of the 'fine detail' aspects. They obviously ask for more detail when authors leave out detail i.e. volume numbers, page ranges etc

@Linas, in one of the many questions here there was the idea to ask all journals to accept unformatted (or freely formatted) papers for the review process. Everything should be in order, of course, but maybe not at the correct place yet. Only after acceptance we would then have to format the paper according to the guidelines of the journal in question. I think the implementation of this idea would help us a lot. What do you think?

Sounds like a good idea to me Michael - but some citation systems are very different to others I.e Vancouver (numerical) versus APA, Chicago, Harvard etc. I think that the general conventions would need to be more similar before we could implement what you suggest.

@ Michael, @Dean

I agree. Pre-review and then full format only - could be nice.

Then let's set up an RG 'revolution' that pressures them to think about it!!

@Dean, call it 'emancipation' and the whole project URGE (United ResearchGate Emancipation).

@Michael and @Dean, that is what we need! I do not like a word "revolution", but I do understand it is URGE and it is URGEnt! :)

Maybe its an issue of the different academic traditions. I would use the "personal communication by XY"-method. Just the same as I do when someone gives me an insight on a conference or via mail. How to put it in the bibliography (if it should be put in there) is a technical detail, I think...

Even if what we write here is really insightful and extremely intelligent - it is not an academic text. Not even an interview. So, why should we treat info from RG in another way than we would do with info from facebook?

My opinion will probably not be very original -I have not read all the answers for this topic-, but I find it natural -or polite as I saw in an answer- to acknowledge contributions of RG members exactly as I would do for physical persons or for persons who exchanged by email. According to the relevancy and usefulness of their contributions, I would either thank them in the acknowledgements, or cite them. I read good propositions there to cite contributors. In addition, I believe that if a contribution is really helpful, in that it changes fundamentally the discussion or even if, for instance, it suggests further experiments likely to improve the study, I could propose to include the contributor among the authors. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't find it much deserved than including in the authorlist people who didn't even read the paper oe heard about the study, just for obscure political reason or because thei name is well-known.

In the case some post gives me idea for the paper, I would credit the poster as an author of this idea. In the case I can answer to the chalange, I would contact the poster about working on the paper together.

I agree with Sébastien Küry's that an RG input would be like any other professional opinion that one would really be bound to cite as "personal communication" or an acknowledgement, depending on the publisher's specs.

Unless you have corresponded by E-mail or RGMail, the communication is public and should rather be labelled "Public communication". Google this: "It is good to have these discussions, interesting views and a multiplicity of ideas/ viewpoints - lovely." Google points to Patrick's contribution above.

Ian, good point!

Although comments are 'in the public domain' - do you think all contributors agree that they willingly sign up to be cited in another medium? In the context of acknowledging help I imagine there would be few who would object to their name being used, but many contribute simply to offer help & nothing more. Perhaps there is a difference in (?) level & intent between citing and acknowledging a source. I know that as soon as I publish a paper it is open to the scrutiny of all (& I sign up to the good & the bad). I perhaps mistake the informality of 'publishing' a post though ....

To define better my earlier statement: "the help of an RG peer should be mentioned in the acknowledgements of a publication when such help has been valuable. This respond to the criterion of intellectual honesty, the same as that which calls for the proper citation of previous work on the same subject, in the list of references", I should also add that the help may have simply originated from a "public" discussion on RG but could also develop into a one-to one collaboration, in which case a co-authorship could also be appropriate, based on the same principle.

@Nicholas, I usually ask before acknowledging individuals; up to now I've never seen a decline.

Michael - back to an earlier point of mine 'all publicity is good publicity' - I doubt that you will come across too many declines!! I agree with Nicholas as well - many that contribute to RG are doing it 'just to help where they can'.

@Nicolas: The informality of Private and Public Communication does not detract from the need to cite or acknowledge the original source of the idea. Sure, such Communication is less rigorous than material published in academic papers, but then every reader is aware of that and will take it into account is assessing the ideas.

@Ian: I think we have two issues here. Firstly, it is quite right to cite useful sources of information and acknowledge any particularly helpful individuals. It is unlikely though, that such help would only have come only from an RG thread, & is more likely to have taken the form of 'personal correspondence'.

Take this reply for example - I think of it as being read by other thread members & although I know you can stumble across it with Google, I do not conceptualise it as going outside the threads bounds. Because of this, I would only include routine opinion and probably not much specific detail and would not expect any special thanks or acknowledgement. If however, a thread participant looked like they needed a more detailed response, then I would give this in a message & this definitely takes the form of 1:1 personal correspondence (needs citing or acknowledgement).

The second issue is the formality of the platform: The way I utilize RG threads is a) to get a general picture & maybe some inspiration or insight on matters I am interested in; b) to interact more formally with peers, perhaps through private message or paper exchange. IMO, these platforms are designed to break down the formality of communication so that people can express themselves more freely. For that reason, we do not draw swords on opinions we do not share, do the hard critique on everybody's viewpoint or grammar etc - these are left to more formal arenas. Because of this, I do not think that general thread comments need to be cited directly (especially not by individual contributor name), even if someone has pointed you in the right direction.

Good response Nicholas -well thought through!!

As a follow up to my @Ian post though: RG threads and communications do get the old cogs whirring ...

This type of platform (not RG in particular but this type of web media in general) may offer a very useful new format to disseminate 'publications' almost instantly and so contribute to open access. Suppose a journal adopted this platform and placed its content in a similar way: people submit for publication, it gets peer reviewed & then 'posted'. Lots quicker (& cheaper) than traditional formats & almost instantly available to anyone (hit Google or go to the site). Our forms of digital scholarship are rapidly changing & this format may provide a middle ground between informal forums & meet the specific intent to publish viewpoints and materials.

@Dean: this response is not well thought through, but perhaps others may have a viewpoint that could develop it further - it's just a post I contributed to a forum (so no need to cite or acknowledge in outside formats :-)

Hi Nicholas - tongue-in-cheek, I wouldn't cite it. Call me a 'traditionalist' but, currently, it needs to be conventional for me to cite. However, I do like your proposal of a publishing house I.e. Elsevier etc adopting a model like RG for a quicker reviewing process. On the other hand, quicker does not always equate to better - but something 'in the middle' may well suffice.

@Nicholas: Remember that in other disciplines, under other RG topics people are posting valuable experimental techniques, experimental ideas, hints etc. on ResearchGate, and these may require thanks or citing and also if personal correspondence was entered into.

We must warn our students that although everything is easily downloaded from the Web, not everything is free for them to use any way they want.

@ Ian: words of wisdom, I couldn't agree more.

Agreed, such acknowledgements must be given based on merits. I could not find such opportunity but would be happy to acknowledging ideas and help of researchers in RG

Many good responses and point of views. Point of view would obviously change depending upon the person. In my opinion, any valuable input received from RG should be acknowledged in the way as 'Personal Communication'. However like te personal communication, the availability of RG for others is a question mark depending upon the RG procedures. But I would like to refer it if I find something useful for any of my publication.

Dear Michael, For me it is quite exciting environment and platform to get responses and suggestions from peers. I am a member of RG for quite a while but just started interacting with peers. I wish to get greater comments and responses from peers in the near future.Likewise I will also share views and insight with them.

It should be easy to mention any person in the acknowledgement, but it may be difficult and usually impossible to acknowledge the remark of an anonymous reviewer of a manuscript who may have pointed out a useful experiment or any other new thoughts. I do not think it would really be necessary to mention ResearchGate in case a scientist helped and should be mentioned in the acknowledgement, since ResearchGate is the mediating platform, not the direct personal help. In some cases it may be OK to ask the people if it is OK to mention their name at all, or describe the context of the specific contribution, i.e. sometimes critical readers or commenters of a manuscript may not agree with all points, so one should not give the impression those acknoweledged persons really would agree on everything.

@Robert, it should always be clear that the whole content of a paper is the responsibility of all authors stated. The acknowledgement typically indicates peers who have helped in a way, e.g. by discussing a point (even if not agreeing on it) or giving advice on a specific method. It's not about creating a shared responsibility.

I have always wondered how to go about this but not very sure! RG discussion has helped me in many ways but acknowledging it, there has to be some way !

In a recent article, I was discussing language and wanted to acknowledge a tread I had been participating in (it gave me many insights), but not any particular individual. I cited RG as follows: The immediate text read - 'Although this may seem to factually represent the situation, it cannot be ignored that those who speak English as a second or other language may face a considerable disadvantage in the competition to publish and interact in the current academic arena (e.g. Egger et al. 1997; Meneghini & Packer 2007; Research Gate 2013)'. The listing was: 'Research Gate. Does language-mastery barrier trim scientific knowledge and the chance of publication? 2013. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_language-mastery_barrier_trim_scientific_knowledge_and_the_chance_of_publication_What_is_your_experience_in_your_field. Accessed November, 2013.'

That is my only citation of RG, but I think it raised a due acknowledgement.

@Michael, I understand your point. Sometimes a person who could participate in coauthoring but has no time to contribute in a way that would qualify for a coauthorship, there is a chance to mention some help in an acknowledgement. But there also could be the case that someone who was helpful does not want to be mentioned, for example, a plagiarizing biophysics lab is highly influencial and promised to bother my career, then it may not be helpful to some neutral persons to appear in my acknowledgement if the german biophysicists could harm others' careers too.

So true, Ismael, thanks for this response. And, as you would acknowledge significant personal communication you had with peers on conference venues, you would do the same for similar input from peers here on RG.

Nicholas, I'm not sure about directly referencing to RG because here we do not communicate through a peer reviewed publication. From my point of view I would use a footnote, or, as said, a note in the acknowledgement section.

I have upvoted valuable answers under this thread. @Michael, hope everything is OK after military coup!? Take care!

I would acknowledge for significant intellectual input

Michael - there are widely acknowledged formal requirements for referencing 'personal communications' & these are used from top to bottom of the 'peer reviewed' literature ... so not all material has to be peer-reviewed before it is published and deemed 'worthy' ;-)

You will see from the sentence context and thread listing, I was making a specific point that this topic was being debated in different arenas (the RG thread being one of them). If I wanted to highlight a direct point from this thread, I might use a footnote (if the style permitted) ... I do not think I would use the acknowledgement section unless a particular individual had given important help, or the members of the thread had collectively done something (e.g. suggested I write on the topic or something).

Alright, Nicholas, I actually was referring to individuals here on RG threads having given the input (as I said in the question 'by RG peers'). Sorry for the misunderstanding.

@Ljubomir, thanks for your consideration. Everything is OK here; remember, I'm not in Bangkok, where life is more affected. Yesterday schools were closed including the universities (at least mine), so I had a day off and used the time for posting on RG.

Such acknowledgements must be based on merit.

It seems to me that we should consider these exchanges on RG the same as if we were having a live conversation and cite them as such when appropriate. Working in APA format there is guidance for citing direct conversations which I have used for information that was the result of mentoring by key opinion leaders (KOL). It seems the ethical thing to do. At the very least acknowledging their input seems like a good idea.

Hi Gayle,

Good response and, i agree, it would work with APA. They seem to work harder than other conventions though at this sort of thing. However, collectively, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver etc are internationally popular - but less visible on conventions like this.

If I quote or paraphrase a question or post on ResearchGate, I cite it as "Public communication". If I have correspondence through ResearchGate mail, it becomes "Personal communication".

I think I go for referencing the source of the information and if need be use the relvant RG URL. I have once stumbled upon an information on this medium after searching for reference to an assertion I made in a paper. Someone was responding to a question on RG and his answer was on point for me. I referenced the person in the footnote to support that claim. However, what I do first, if I find such answer here, is to try to find a literature backing that up. If I can't find, then I will hazard the guess that the author must have used some residual knowledge or understanding to make the statement. After all, we expect to find researchers here.

Anyway thanks for all the earlier thread. They are all mind openers.

Also find answers to similar question at:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_best_way_to_cite_a_ReasearchGate_comment_in_an_academic_paper/amp