Not sure how important this RG score is. It probably will not have any impact on your ability to get funding or to publish or get a new position. I see it as Researchgate's way of motivating people to actually network and discuss ideas ie to make this site an active "living" thing" instead of a repository of scientific CVs. If this really is the case, they can generate the RG score any way they like and even change it's formula - I wouldn't care much about it and would advise others as well not to stress about it.

Here are a couple of extensive discussions of the putative value of the RG score, though there is nothing in these about the details of how it is calculated, hence this particular question.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_your_opinion_on_the_RG_Score_system14

https://www.researchgate.net/post/ResearchGate_RG_SCORE_inclusion_in_the_personal_Curriculum_Vitae_CV

Note, ResearchGate could render this question pointless simply by publishing their formula/algorithm for calculating the RG score, but they are avoiding such transparency so far.

Dr Beeler,

May I suggest you re-edit the question title into “Petition to publish formula/algorithm by which RG Score is calculated.” Comments are signatures. Each contributor can explain why it is (1)necessary and (2)not risky to publish the way the score is calculated. RG reaction to such internal petition will avoid external on line similar petitions.

Not sure how important this RG score is. It probably will not have any impact on your ability to get funding or to publish or get a new position. I see it as Researchgate's way of motivating people to actually network and discuss ideas ie to make this site an active "living" thing" instead of a repository of scientific CVs. If this really is the case, they can generate the RG score any way they like and even change it's formula - I wouldn't care much about it and would advise others as well not to stress about it.

Great question of Jeff. The rule of transparency! I guess it is reflecting the general problem in science:

Science is strange: in one hand independent and universal, and on the other has to be financed and applied.

So how to finance science in an equal manner: by applying rating. Unfortunately, it is clear that rating is biasing research, Teams work then for a good great, and not any more for making good research.

A bit like in a forum, if you just count the number of post, junk appear every where, if you control the amount of post with the amount of vote, junk mainly disappear, especially if your name is attached to it.

I like more open community system, with pseudo and no count of post. That is allowing a bit more freedom from the part of user.

Hi Peter, I agree that if the RG score is a within-platform motivator there is no need for discussion. However, that is not how RG presents it. They market it as a metric for scientific reputation and as an alternative to the traditional metric of impact factor. They suggest that the score may have utility in evaluating scientists, as evidenced by the suggestion that it be included on CVs. So I believe RG is intentionally conflating a within platform motivational device to encourage participation with a meaningful evaluation of one's scientific productivity and potential. So long as this conflation remains an integral part of their marketing strategy, I believe it is dishonest and needs to be criticized vociferously and persistently until they are more transparent and honest about the RG score. I believe these discussions are quite important in shaping the future of social media platforms targeting the scientific community.

RG score are not totally transparent, that is a fact. And I think that can be applied to a lot of different institutions or community which are even not publishing they score (bringing a main problems: are these institutions really allowed to make benefice using private access to these data base?).

Jeff, I agree and I think you'll get no arguments from anybody against transparency :). The only argument - that I can think of - in favor of keeping the RG score non-transparent with only "pointers" as to how it is calculated is that not knowing exactly the weights of different things like papers/answers/etc will make it a bit harder for people to "play the system". It seems to me that the Devs of this site are still developing the way this score is calculated and as long as the score is not used by anybody to compare two persons, it will stay meaningless. Actually, if the developers want to create a new, meaningful and important scoring mechanism (I'd applaud that effort), they will actually have to make it transparent as that is one of the basic features of all the currently used scientific metric scores.

Peter, I wish I could learn that publications count heavily and then game the system by publishing more papers. :)

I am old and old-fashioned. I see so many young people and their parents trying to "game the system" It distresses me. (It seems Machiavellian to me.)

When I was a student, I just studied the topics that interested me (within a wide range of choices), and I devoted my time to the subjects, according to my own priorities.

After a short interval, I entered into research in the aerospace industry, at first as an assistant to principal investigators. Our goal was not to publish, but rather to solve well-defined problems and further the understanding in a specific domain.

Advancement was based on achievement in these specific goals - a meritocracy..

There was no gaming the system or playing politics.

I guess I was lucky to have grown in such an environment (1960s - 1980s).

Is this old approach still possible?

Hi Antonio- I think that old approach is, in many ways, still operative. There are things that perhaps twist the process a bit. . . biases, increased pressure to publish in high profile journals, the increasing challenge of funding, but on the whole I think people still advance in science by producing consistent, quality work. I think one's CV is still the primary basis of evaluation and advancement. At the end of the day, I think all these various metrics, including and especially the so-called RG score, are a complete waste of time. Not only do they usurp thoughtful consideration of colleagues' work, they transfer power from scientists to evaluate each other to those who define and compute the metric. I think many would complain that scientists have turned over this evaluative role to editors at prestigious journals far too much already. Now RG is saying 'hey, let us provide a measure of you, and PS, we're not really going to explain it either.' I form my opinion of colleagues by looking at their work, not where it was published, or how many papers they have or their h-factor or, most certainly not an RG score. I see these metrics as counter-productive and distracting, impeding rather than enhancing meaningful scientific communication.

In this age of data analytics, the variety of "scores" and "indexes" that keep popping up is intriguing, and I constantly wonder how to use these for gauging the true quality of any of my peers. More importantly, I do not know how to advise the next generation scientists about which data they should target. We all know some people are better at gaming data-driven systems than others, but how much should we stress on developing that skill? All scores, including citations and blended ratings, are quantitative. On the other hand, true quality of scientific work, especially if it is truly original and non-conforming to popular trends, takes time to be appreciated by peers.

I just joined RG this week because one of my grad students invited me, and I am intrigued by the pop-up saying "High quality answers appreciated by your peers will help increase your RG score". That implies that this score is created to generate conversation and increase participation, which is a good thing. The key is that the scientific community develop a balanced understanding of what each score means.