It has been noted that some RG members recommend and perhaps also read unrelated research work. Obviously this is intended to boost scores for certain colleagues of theirs, but do you think this should be allowed?
Dear Reda Elmabruk
¡ Obviously this is intended to boost scores for certain colleagues of theirs, but do you think this should be allowed?"
I often read research by authors I did not even know existed before but being in consciousness research, in the end most things are interrelated. I also recognise a well written article or an article that seems to offer good sound arguments and from which i have learnt new things - so of course I recommend them. I do no feel most people "go around boosting scores for certain colleagues" - this for me would be a waste of my time which I happen to value highly.
Warm regards Tina
Dear Reda Elmabruk
¡ Obviously this is intended to boost scores for certain colleagues of theirs, but do you think this should be allowed?"
I often read research by authors I did not even know existed before but being in consciousness research, in the end most things are interrelated. I also recognise a well written article or an article that seems to offer good sound arguments and from which i have learnt new things - so of course I recommend them. I do no feel most people "go around boosting scores for certain colleagues" - this for me would be a waste of my time which I happen to value highly.
Warm regards Tina
Dear Reda Elmabruk,
Excellent question! You are right, it seems unprofessional and inacceptable to recommend or read unrelated research. But on the other hand RG is a social network and we can't ban anybody react to these studies. It's perfect to have a contact only with experts, but members of the site may follow activities of other users and engage discussions with them despite their scope of study.
Yes I realise that this can happen on social bases or to appreciate a good argument, but when this occurs on a large scale with a few hundred followers then there has to be a big question mark! I do not doubt that RG admin are aware of it, but what can they do? Perhaps the idea of SIGs (Special Interest Group) can limit this by counting only Reads only from SIG members and allowing Recommendations from other SIGs.
Absolutely not! History essays for example are vastly different to scientific articles or essays.
Nevertheless, although I mark a range of disciplines-business, psychology, I have qualifications also in the latter but have immense experience marking and teaching business-I have sufficient experience to mark them well.
I am more concerned about RG question-responses being cluttered with pointless short answers like "I agree" , "thank you for your answer", "good answer", "God is the answer", "I follow", etc. which contribute nothing to the discussion and which often prevent informative answers from being seen because they are lost in the clutter. Also, people who are following the question will have their mailboxes cluttered with notifications of such pointless answers and will be wasting their time in going to RG to have a look. If people gave similar responses during the question period after a paper at a conference they'd be regarded as insane, yet they feel entitled to do that on RG.
Yes, I agree about the annoying clutter caused by appeasing non-contributing responses, such as those mentioned by Karl Pfeifer , the purpose of which is only to increase Responses . The question is how to remedy the issue? My suggestion to RG admin. is to moderate responses before being displayed, as I am sure they do with Questions.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking