I agree with your assessment about openness and accountability.

The RG score reflects social activity, and is heavily affected by Reads, Recommendations, and especially Q&A.

TRI depends on Citations, Reads and Recommendations, and is closer to a research activity metric.

The h-index, which balances Citations and Publications, should be incorporated into the calculation of TRI.

Dear Michael, thanks for your feedback and I agree. However, how could we have an impact on making the establishers of RG to work more in precisely defining the factors of compiling the RG score. Furthermore, google scholar mapps more citations than RG.

To Festim:

Continuous feedback through Q&A can only help make small changes in RG policy.

Google Scholar does indeed map more papers and citations than does RG, but RG is not a subset of GS, so they are both useful.

Dear Festim:

It depends on how you might define the RG score and TRI as "reliable".

They are useful insofar as they provide research metrics that can be interpreted easily.

How they might be used is another issue altogether.