A scientist should focus on serving others with his/her work. Scores don’t define who we are. Our work does.

A scientist should focus on serving others with his/her work. Scores don’t define who we are. Our work does.

Hi,

When you discuss various subjects on RG, it does not mean that you are not working on your research at the same time. It means that you find some time to be in touch with researchers around the world, of different ages and various disciplines, and you have a chance to observe different points of view on many issues.

Avishag Gordon

Dear Avishag Gordon, thank you for your words. Yes, I can confirm your experience, but sometimes there emerge some doubts, because all that you mentioned becomes - in certain respect - a dimension which is not only useful but also strange or dubious,. And dubious seems to mee the question concerned that has moved the discussion here for 4 years, how to collect as many points as possible for the "score" as quickly as possible.

And that's the reason why the wonderful international communication that scientists can use or enjoy is focused on such amazing problems as: In what way did you spend the last weekend, or: what is your favorite color? And most people don't realize - that was my thesis! - how they are trapped in the time-consuming system of RG. But nobody really wants to discuss that. The discussions run in a mode of alternate confirmation: "I agree with..." On the other hand, I love the mode of contradiction and the critical discussion of theories about what we do, even in RG.

If a scientist has a claim to himself - just as a doctor publicly confesses his professional claim to himself through the hyppocratic oath - then one makes a fool of oneself with such a question, even if some think it is important for a career. The scientist's self-image should have a different appearance - that would be my modest demand. A scientist's actions have an ethical side that is contrary to the desire to maintain the highest possible reputation - with the simplest possible means that have nothing to do with science.

I'm happy to admit it: When one is a little older, one thinks differently about science and the scientific world than when one is at the beginning or in the middle of the vocational career.

Kind regards, Hein Retter

Hassaan Tohid

Dear Hassaan, yes I can understand your view, and I support it. Thanks, Hein Retter

Antony Last

Dear Antony, thank you for your response. I think similar, but sometimes is it not possible to give an exact answer. So we should try to be as correct as possible. I also think that people's thought of the score should not be the main thing in a discussion, but the interest in the subject-matter. Then you learn the most yourself, is my experience.

RG score is just a number. It is mostly based on the interaction with other researchers. It is a good platform to share ideas and discuss scientific issues. The scientifc ability of research can not be judged by RG score.

Thank you Dr. Hein Retter

Dear Hein Retter thank you for your interesting question as well as for your convincing opinion.

Thanks gordon

Hi Dr. Retter,

Thanks for the elaborate answer. I must agree with you on the effect of age on the perception of science. As to spending time on RG, I think that this is a matter on how one divides his time , doing daily chores, working on a science project and spending time on RG. None of these functions should be neglected.

Avishag Gordon

Thanks once more for your friendly comment, It's not my intention to restirct any condition of RG communication. It's only my pleasure, following the philosophy of Karl R.. Popper, to try to conradict with some reasonable arguments to make discussions lively and theories somewhat sustainable.

Best, Hein

Yosra Gafsi

Nice to meet you, Yosra!

Best, Hein

Manigandan Sekar

I look forward to getting to know you on this thread

Hein Retter

Interesting

Dear Hein Retter

We know how RG works. But we are much cared about score including me. But the way RG defining the score must be rephrased.

RG may be scientific but they are also corporate they also wanted to mint money by giving scores to questions and answers. Just like forums do

Hein Retter recently i seen a profile whose RG score is 180.

92% coming from answers. 13220 answers so far its huge.

But RG keeps the pressure on the them. they need to answer regularly else there score will decrease. So, they start to answer vague without aqueaduate knowledge in the concern field

There are several parallel discussions on RG on this issue. RG score basically validates the RG policy of mixing actual scholarship based on publications and citations in internationally-indexed academic journals with a forum side, which ranges from friendly chat to deep science. Though, the chat side is growing. In my opinion the forum side should not count towards the RG score.

Dragos Petrescu and followers!

Dear Dragos, dear Colleagues, I have waited a little with my answer, until a few prospective customers for this thread have come together. Because you just answered, I want to start with you.

I think your answer is okay. It is a description of the situation, at the same time you are a committed participant of RG. That applies to all of us. Somehow RG is fascinating, otherwise we wouldn't be there, it starts with the worldwide possible communication. You will soon find colleagues with whom you can communicate well and the field of questions is also interesting. I asked myself and everyone else whether moral problems could arise for us as scientists - for each of us alone, of course. For me, a problme is that I actually invest too much time in RG. In the long run, a functional dependency on the science portal will be created, which younger colleagues either lack in their research work or for their limited leisure time, because for most of them their own family and the narrower circle of the social network are still there. Each of us shortens his valuable lifetime and hands it over to RG - a system that actually only sees its goal in collecting as much time as possible from its members. You get points for this. I see a moral problem here, but I cannot solve it, so I would like to discuss it. We make ourselves dependent on the system, and the system does nothing other than induce us to make time available. I believe, however, that when it comes to giving time away, it is much more important to be able to decide for ourselves what little time is left. RG does that for me.

M. Mirrashid

I agree with you, but sometimes I see that there are opions in some threads, I don't agree with with assertions. So a try to contradict. This costs time, and is ambivalent. I am satisfied to do so, at the same time I feel more stress my other goals suffer not to get attention, adequately.

Manigandan Sekar

thank you very much for your both answers. You have described the situation very well I think. The problem is that we come in a state of certain addiction because our behavior RG successfully attempt to change in gaining a score of almost 100 %. You know, that the system doesn't give 100 % also not for a score 180. I find it important to reflect about that what happend with us as apparently "independend" researchers, if we get so much addicted by RG, giving RG all our precious time. What's your feeling?

Marwah Firas Abdullah Al-Rawe

Perhaps you are stimulated to say something about your own experience, thanks!

@ Hein Retter First of all, congratulations for starting a serious discussion on the matter. Yes, RG, very much like academia.edu, is also a business meant to create addiction in order to grow. However, I am fully aware of the great advantage of worldwide communication on scholarly topics RG offers. Sometimes, I find myself trapped and spending too much time on its forum side. True, I do find some "blockbusters" on the RG forum like the secrets of happiness, marriage, low fat diet, low carbohydrates intake, still water, a little bit annoying, but acceptable. To cut a long story short, I think that hunting for a high RG score at all costs is not something that brings academic recognition.

What for? “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”