I discovered that some people creates inadequate numbers of posts/questions related to the same field. These posts look like a scam. I reported several cases to RG administration and received the answers like that "thank for bringing us an attention," "we'll take appropriate measures," etc.
One of the recent example is the posts of Rk Naresh. He created 13 posts on May 24, 15 on May 23, 17 on May 22 and so on. He created totally 8975 posts and gave 11921 answers. All his answers are to his own posts. This is definitely "self- talking." I consider such a behavior as a misuse of the RG platform.
What do you think about such behavior? I guess that we can create a "Hall of Fame" of the most famous people in creating posts in RG forum? What is your opinion?
Questions are powerful tools used in attaining knowledge, problem solving and making connections. Asking them is very essential. It helps us identify gaps in our understanding and make sure we're on the right track when finding solutions. However, Yurii V Geletii , it is my opinion only that we should not inflate the number of our questions, because we are impeding with this multiplying method the very dialogue and discourse community we are searching for, i.e. from the viewpoint of information theory, it will backfire.
Dear Yurii V Geletii , we had recently a Hall of Shame. I would not change a name. The number of questions of this champion is 8975. For example, my number of questions is 50. He is chasing the high RI score!
Another problem is fact that most of his contributions are copy/paste plagiarism. When you tell him, he deletes posts.
As You say, "This is definitely "self- talking." I consider such a behavior as a misuse of the RG platform." I support this conclusion. I have never met a member of ResearchGate who has such behavior.
Please, visit the following research question and detect his behavior.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_circular_bioeconomic_activities_could_play_significant_role_in_achieving_resilience_in_agriculture_what_would_be_some_best_example
I reported to the RG on some posts purely political. (One petition by a German Green Party 'for removal of Putin regime'). This is abuse as well. But I do not think that this platform would remove that. Also, the RG considerations of effectiveness may differ drastically from what a responsible high-quality scholars deems effective from purely scholarly considerations. Of course, you are right. I also see many people 'hunting' metrics, and gaining recommendations for their purely formal 'thanks'. This is another issue - the human fragility and insecurities, that are often to be found amongs scholars (those of us who are long 'in the field' know the causes - academic vanity etc.). Well, I think we will have to put up with such phenomena for a long long time, not only through this platform. Thanks for your post. I rarely find normal, reasonable and critical voices in the context of the RG. p.s. Yes, and I ceased taking the RG score into any account. For an example, compare the late Fiona Cowie profile here with any with 10.000 and more RG score.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Publishing