Really a nice topic to discuss, I am unable to contribute my comments right now, but want to see this discussion further.

As I believe one must follow what he or she want to follow. But comment suggestion from a layperson can be more effective as it add a view. Important is comment not the source because we can verify it. if u trust Blindly trusting any body... then god knows your future!!!

Surely the social media websites mostly encourage any person to contribute in discussions due to the very reason Arindam Banerjee stated that laypersons may also provide new insight of great value. Anyone may provide some idea which may not be kicked off just by experts. The information can be then verified/rejected after consulting/searching through reliable sources.

I believe it is a matter of lending perspective to the forum of ideas. Sometimes, the expert lacks perspective, and such discussion boards allow/force the expert to come up with an explanation or a defense without being subject to undue criticism or peer pressure. Frankly, I follow and contribute to RG without a publication to my name -- at this time. However, as a classroom teacher, I have an advanced degree, and years of conducting what we call "action research" on the topic of emerging communication technologies on adolescent learning. It is difficult to stop and conduct clinical trials on my students, but I have accumulated a body of work and am currently set to begin writing outside academia or industry. What I get from this forum is the voice that I will need to write and speak with. I have followed an number of discussions that are baffling but incite me to chime in with my "two cents". Like any excited, engaged audience, I speak my mind, and have been quite gratified, at times to have my thoughts dignified (and sometimes thankfully ignored) by responses by some very seemingly knowledgeable colleagues. I am an educator, by training, a constructivist, one who brings what I have to the discussion, offers it up, and who, in exchange, takes away what I need. In my opinion, the panel who monitors this forum does pretty well.

To me it depends upon what media site you are operating. If for instance I am on a Facebook, or Twitter, I do not expect any of it to be of any verifiable help. First, because no matter the identification of the person you really don't know to whom you are speaking or where the concepts or thoughts are coming from - he or she could have just run a deep web google and come up with all kinds of facts, so in effect you would be charging into the argument against a actor who really has nothing of personal value to give. On the other hand, if I am on a talk site that I know is affiliated with professional organization to which I am a member, I have a better chance feeling comfortable that I am speaking with a fellow researcher. Still, unless I have exchanged with this particular person in the past, or have a reason to suspect that he/she represents what they say they are, I will be reluctant to quote their material without further research on my part. I was a police detective for several years and I can assure you that I never took anything at face value and I always double checked my sources for accuracy. Believe me, you don't want to justify your case in front of a judge, unless you have crossed all your t's and dotted all your i's.

I think we can know the reputation and experience of the person who is giving an answer or a suggestion from his answer itself and if needed through a simple search. I think RG Score is the best solution for this problem.

I appreciate Jonathan Edwards, Mike Coston, Nalam Satyanarayana and all others who added interesting views. No doubt, humans have different opinion on one point and combining them will result in more interesting vision. The question in this thread is not just related to ResearchGate. It is very well managed social website. My question extends to other websites, as well, which are not managed by technical talent. In that case, Farooq Rathore provided very useful idea. I feel the need to add that RG score is important when some person is really involved in discussions for fairly long time. Low RG score may not exclude talent, when the corresponding researcher is new to the forum or could not participate fairly. However, I agree that usually RG score is very useful. Furthermore, I used the word "layperson" just because of traditional use of this word. Otherwise, use of this word, specifically, for RG users is very harsh, as all of them are experts in some way or the other.

I took no offense from the word layperson - I am after all new to this site, and many of you have information and ideas that are beyond anything I have ever dealt with. My background is law enforcement and fraud investigation. As a certified fraud investigator I look for things that don't fit, unusual transactions, stories that don't line up, so my outlook on issues is going to be different than yours. I tend to be suspicious at first glance - often using the offensive "prove it" caution.

Simply put. an expert will speak and back up his speech with some professional terminologies called jargons, etc in his /her field of study such that when others read from him/her, U'll feel his/pulse and know he is not speaking vaguely. For a 'layperson', he/she has nothing to back up his/her sayings. They just speak from what they have heard from someone sometimes and try to also contribute especially when it is about professional issues. It takes professionals too to sieve and know what is true, fact or what is.

A layperson would not have interest to discuss on academic and research matters. By the way, I don't look at the person, but I look at the ideas presented.

Ah, but how do you know it is a real name?

Yes, it is difficult to find out that a person operating some account on a social media website is the real person as he/she used the name. But even more difficult when the user is displaying nickname and not the real name. The probability in first case of being a real scientist is greater as compared to other case when the person is even not displaying the name. The probability in the second case of being rea;l scientist is negligible.

Sadly, in the US everyone operates on passwords and log in names - it is encouraged by the media and the various web sites. Part of it is a real concern for ID theft, part is vanity, and part is because we have become a land of followers - baggy pants with your underwear hanging out, caps worn backwards, and nicknames. It is a sadness that prevails and I doubt will ever leave us.

Clarinda Cerejo: "it is best to consider the contribution independent of the contributor"

Nalam Satyanarayana: "I think we can know the reputation and experience of the person (...) from his answer itself"

Fadzidah Abdullah: "By the way, I don't look at the person, but I look at the ideas presented"

I agree with you all. I think that the vast majority of contributors here in RG are able to filter nonsense, fuzziness and weak arguments.

Fadzidah Abdullah: "A layperson would not have interest to discuss on academic and research matters"

I disagree. Unfortunately there is a lot of people that thinks too highly about themselves. Please make a search in Google with the following terms: "Ecce Mono" and you'll see what I mean.

I agree that majority of peoples discussing scientific topics on social website media are key opinion makers in their field of specialization. But even then posts of these experts are not the ideal visions about various matters under discussion. Mostly here rough ideas are placed for refining. Remarks and comments are very interesting, no doubt. However, very peoples provide any reference to a any declaration. Is it true that we mostly speak our mind without proof.

@Latif, Ahmad: To support you. We are speaking here at RG without any authority except our own experience. There is generally no need for references, because this is one big, international common room, where we meet to chat about academic matters. Those opinions that we present here must still be reconciled with your own experiences and beliefs.

@Ian Kennedy! Thanks for encouragement. Yes we do not need references for discussions related to general public opinions. But in threads addressing the questions related to scientific research and methodology, provision of references will be very useful. In fact, I raised concerns about some other topics and not in Academic Writing. Having said that, I thought the experts available in this topic can also be willing to provide their opinion for improving strengths of discussions in areas of applied research. This idea hit my mind because the scope of (question of) my thread extends to all types of discussions on social websites.

However, despite our lack of faith in Facebook and Twitter, it is a place where initial connections can be made, and many reputable businesses and state agencies currently have contact points on social media. Sometimes it is easier to find a source on a high risk site like Facebook, and then transfer to a secure site such as this one. remember if your issue is should I use personal pronouns in my dissertation - it can be answered on a social media site with proper references.

It is from books and articles read or bought on sites that gives one insight on current developments and discussion on a particular field of study work. Experts in any study field were once layerpersons and there individual expert contributions started by a simple laypersons idea. It is then imperative that we do not discriminate a layperson from experts in as much as the layperson have a idea which can be encouraged and developed. Then who knows, an expert will be made.

The real experts are known by their documents and their data that they refer to.

Thanks all contributors. I am especially delighted due to the wonderful and great information provided by Joachim Pimiskern. I do not have much technical ability to discuss those articles, he has attached with his answer to my thread. However, I am now much satisfied that enough basic information related to this thread has gathered for all interested. Moreover, any person having time and ability to discuss the matter at length can also get enough help.