Yes Dear @ Mariano nobody agrees with this practice of plagiarism.

I do not agree with this practice of plagiarism. Be repetitors of news has not been never original scientific work.

But remember facts of wisdom in appropriate time could be important and acceptable.

Dear Mariano. I do not plagiarize.  But I observe that there are some who may forget and place the same post and / or the same links.  I take it that they are so busy or overworked and forgetful until they don't realize what they do.  One day, when people look at our posts, they will be questioning more about the quality, whether we kept to the topic or not.  IT'S THE QUALITY AND HOW MUCH WE CONTRIBUTED THAT'S IMPORTANT, not the score.  (I like RG because of my good friends, and for the MUTUAL LEARNING AND COLLABORATION, not for the score. )

Yes Dear @ Mariano nobody agrees with this practice of plagiarism.

I don't agree with this practice

In answering RG questions, a colleague is advised to follow the scientific way. If the answer comes from the colleague's brain, s/he can phrase it in any way deemed appropriate. If the answer is found in another website, it is not a good practice to copy & paste. To avoid plagiarism, use quotes (as simple as that). This will attribute the answer to its writer or originator & you will be valued as well since you helped the researcher who asked.

There are some members here who may ask questions for the sake of the scores, too! I think the answers to most of the general questions in RG are already available in the Internet, even better and with more details! So both the questions and (repeated) answers must be avoided. Unfortunately most people do not answer specific questions which match their expertise. This is a weak point about RG. 

In general, copy-paste is a bad practice. However, about copy-paste issue we may do in an informative and correct way to be useful to others. For instance I sometimes answer certain questions by bringing quotes form famous people, or I sometimes review and cite reference (link) at the end of my answer so the interested person can follow it.  Even sometimes I and more active members like dear @Ljubomir Jacić give references about similar questions asked before in RG. 

As you may conclude there are lots of overlap, repetition... in RG. Are these just for the sake of RG score? God knows! Anyway, I never consider RG score as a measure  of scientific reputation or use it to judge other colleagues in RG, I use my on own metrics!. 

As long as my quotes have their original source added I do not consider them as plagiarism but I am sometimes annoyed to read my answers in the same form from a male researcher. Then I wonder if it is still so that a woman needs a man who backs up her answers in other countries?

But people transmit what they learn, and learning involves use of existing knowledge, or not?

1 + 1 = 2 (Every body applies/transmits this without referring to the original sources!)

Cheers

Plagiarism is an evil that continues to raise its ugly head at many places in spite of the fact that its ills have been debated in several platforms time and again. RG is no exception. The obsession with RG score has also been discussed previously. Wherever and whenever it is possible let us identify and help such RG friends to avoid plagiarism in future. 

Dear Mariano,

Dear All,

Yes, your observation is accurate. There are many who copy wikipedia details and other excerpts written by native speakers. Some of them mention the used homepage but do not use quotation marks. This became even a business like methodology. However, the most crucial trouble is the lack of ideas.  

Dear Marcel,

I have mentioned often: I like your style even your jokes.

If one copy one is called plagiarism; if one copy many is not plagiarism; if one copy many and add one's own results is called research.

Dear @Kundu. Very true. Actually the last " if one copy many and add one's own results is called research."  is called "review paper" . The one who does it can publish it in a very high IF journal with more respect than original research..

Dear Mahmoud Omid,

Very true! True review paper is more valuable!

I feel like I have to learn a new language, the Quotish. The person pastes a quote and I get a new quote to answer him. Imagine what  I am going to say about it later... As Dr. xxx quotes, According to the quotes of Dr. xxx. Pasting quotes will not allow us to promote growth. This is not plagiarism, but this is a lifeless discussion. We will surely never remember the author of most of the quotes, let alone the RG members who quoted them.

I want to learn from the experiences of the people here. Quotes I get from Google. Say I have a problem. Or even that I have my answers already, but I want to see somebody else's personal experiences, then the person will never share his understanding, or help us to think our concepts over, but he gives me a quote. This can be partially applied to what I am looking for. But I will never have it added to my studies.

When people give their opinions here, I download their articles about it. I ask him his sources and go back to my studies to prove my theories. I put down some of my ideas. I  get stronger after finding out I am right. All of that is very rewarding. What can I get from a "quoted" dialogue? I can only say, interesting. Or not, it is not right. Then, with a quote out of context I will conclude that big names may not be correct. Is that science?

Dear Miranda, I see positive to have an objective score or a near of it, but I do not see correct to obtain score with questionable practices. Thank you for your participation.

I dot have the data but at the same time I do not think because some one posted ideas of another person and get up votes. What we in RG see is the ideas a post contains in regard to the topic of the thread or the research works an article has in connection to what we want to look at.  It might be for some people to do that but eventually will be discovered and receive embarrassing devaluations from members.

I had similar cases that some one posted consecutively answers on my questions and some dedicated colleague figured it and informed me that the person was posting ideas copied from others and even in some cases just copied what I wrote before and posted it in later pages without even putting a quotation mark as if it was his own and I immediately informed the person.

But I know with certainty that all RG members are passionate scientists who have reasons to be here, not to seek fame of falsehood.   

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Originality is undetected plagiarism".

                                                       -----     William Ralph Inge

The merit of originality is not novelty; it is sincerity.

Thomas Carlyle

Dear Mariano,

I feel that Q and A in research gate is more like sharing knowledge that you have obtained from various sources. Plagiarism is more like saying that all this knowledge has been created or researched by me. Sharing knowledge and sources of knowledge is also what we do in teaching. It is something similar.

Dear Ankur, a plagio is, for example, to take the press, see a new, and copy and paste it in the RG answer to a question. But if you do your own sinthesis with your own words, it would be some work yours. And if you put your own sincere vision and creatively, your work is your own work, not a plagio.

Who is the owner of an idea when inspiration has a divine basis?

I feel that there are always questions the actions of everyone and this may encourage some people to work in error, we must help people to take the right path and to encourage them in some way. Plagiarism in this site or any other has derailed person on the scientific reality.

Certainly the plagiarism, and dealing with the fallout of it, was the most difficult thing I've ever faced since I started writing.

--- Nora Roberts

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/norarobert279294.html?src=t_plagiarism

Dear Marino, 

This is one of those questions you just can be upvoted for whatever idea passes your mind. According to my line of thinking this is a question where easy fishing after upvotes is possible and it does not challenge me intellectually. 

Dear Béatrice,

How would you reformulate this question to make it more challenging?

Dear Marcel, Beatrice and all, allow me to place a related question here.  There are some reasons I upvote an answer.  Not all answers need to be upvoted, especially if it adds little, whereas a person who supplies a good link or argument certainly deserves an upvote.  But we should not downvote; because others have a right to their opinion.  But I do NOT have all the answers. I see that certain people are not upvoting based on the quality of a post, but for other reasons.  (Perhaps we can decide that plagiarized answers do not need an upvote @Mariano, to answer your question.)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_your_main_criterion_for_upvoting_an_answer

Dear Marcel, 

I would reformulate it to: Why are you answering or asking question on RG? OR

Why do you repeat an answer on RG that somebody already gave?

Dear Béatrice

A not very challenging answer might be that openly sharing the same opinion with other people could reinforce/support an opinion in a less anonymous way? How would the social-based world be organized when eveybody would disagree with everybody simply to keep the discussion going on?

Dear @Mariano, sorry for late response, I was away of RG for a couple of days. I may say that many people do massive plagiarism in order to get higher RG score, both plagiarism and self-plagiarism. I have warned them through my answers, but I have got replies which are not serious, as plagiarism continues. Some young researchers do not even reply when you give them an advice for not doing the plagiarism and how to properly cite the source in the answer.

Marcel,

You do not need to quote anyone with your always smart and original participation.

Dear Ljubomir, we are always citing, and using quotation marks when needed, but some ignore that completely.  If they can plagiarize openly on RG, do you wonder what they can do in their research paper where the stakes are a lot higher.  I wonder what the RG folks are doing, those in charge of Q and A.  Why are they not getting feedback from members by looking at the posts that we make.  Should it not be their duty to inform members concerning the type of posts that are approved on QA?  Why should they wait until mistakes are made, and then remove threads and suspend members?  (It was K who told me that I should not put FB-like posts on RG, but I see that from some experienced researchers with high scores.)

I did not realize that this was such a major consideration to improve RG scores since there was a belief that we were all professionals and that content would be handled appropriately.   In fact, about a month ago, someone indicated authorship of an article I had written from my original dissertation!  The only co-author that was listed was a professor from the same institution I attended and who had been on my dissertation committee. I reported the other person immediately and so should anyone else who falsely claims information to be their own!  Shameful and a slap in the face to all those who abide by copyright and ethical treatment of ideas and concepts with proper credit. Still unbelievable that someone would claim credit and think nothing of it!! 

Dear @Beth, there are a lot of such cases of plagiarism. Do not be surprised about. It is shameful, but ResearchGate should apply some sanctions toward such people who commit fraud and plagiarism.

The truth, these truths which save to the persons, should not have author rights. I think it is preferable to save a person that abandon him/her in his/her errors. And say the truth is pure freedom.

Other thing would be that a concrete person signs, for example, a divine precept with the same words in which appears in the Bible as of himself/herself. This would be plagio, but not save other with such wisdom, because reproduce the saving truth is good for the persons and it is will of God.

Dear All,

I agree with Vilemar: Quotish is boring. Quotish is the counterpoint of imagination. Quotish is accepted opinion without risk.   

Dear Roland,

Dear All,

There are no un-understandable raisons. Raisons are always understandable. People seek for RG points in order to prove themselves their own successfulness. To get RG points is much easier than to write a study or to find an original idea. I think this is an essential raison.

I think one should accustomed to plagiarisms as well as Quotish.  

Dear Mariano,

I think that quoting the Bible is not plagiarism but a necessary reproduction of the Good News what most people do not respect. Quoting the Bible is but a little ethical lesson for the unbeliever and Pharisaic audience and often also for ourselves.

Dear All,

I have visited some RG threads and it is regrettable to say that Quotish has been spread like the pest in the Middle Age.

Dear @András, are we members of QuoteGate  or ResearchGate? I agree that there are too many quotes at RG threads. ResearchGate should take care of it, right?

Think we can apply writing Q&A in RG similar to writing in typical academic article whereby we can cite by rephrasing the words to transpire the idea or quote literally with double quotation marks "xxx" with certain length.

Other questionable practice is to be agree or not and saying it with other precedent comment because it does not contribute much as answer to the question.

Yes, there is funny practice in that sense. Here are some examples, I am with you, I agree with you, ..., thanks for fine answers, thanks for good quote, ...nice answer by... I have made a risk to get some downvote, what do you think dear @Mariano?

Will punishment come?

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Here are two interesting "Famous Quotes about Plagiarism":

"I don't think anybody steals anything; all of us borrow."

                                                   -----    B. B. King

"Genius Borrows nobly."

                                                  ----  Ralph Waldo Emerson

Hi Roland,

To me a quote is a means to an end so that I can borrow other sources to illustrate / justify my point / idea.  By all means we should feel free to express our thoughts in forum like RG instead of applying the rigor level as in academic writing.  However, think we should quote if necessary so that not to deprive the original idea / contribution from the source.

Regards,

Fung

Dear Mariano, 

This is like asking are researchers more immoral than others? Are they? Are they more envious than other? Are they more competitive compared to others? I think that there are givers and takers all over the world. Some persons here on RG have pondered these questions:

Article An Attributional Analysis of Moral Emotions: Naive Scientist...

Article Competitive Science: Is Competition Ruining Science?: Scienc...

Research Thoughts on science and psychology

Dear Béatrice, certainly one must know why he votes or does not vote or downvotes. The moral must help to take these decisions with sincerity.

Dear Mariano, 

Some of us simply want to keep dementia away and take answering on RG as a way to go on thinking. 

Happened to find this paper. 

Article The Role of Basic Need Fulfillment in Academic Dishonesty: A...

Dear @Mariano, my dear fellow followers, now I may say :  Plagiarism may be a key to receive upvotes in RG answer!

Please, be kind and see my comments on plagiarism of this man, links follow. Follow his upvotes, his answers are the most popular, upvoted mostly from "members" of RG from the same institution, in last few days. RG should react instantly!

I have warned Mostafa about plagiarism publicly , reactions were upvotes!

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mostafa_Eidiani/info

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_knowledge2

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_we_really_experience_anything_objectively

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_RG_score_important_for_researchers

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_definition_of_happiness

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_could_happen_if_we_all_become_Centenarians

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_multiculturalism_for_you

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_do_you_think_about_artificial_intelligence

Dear All,

I am very saddened to have read that some RG members could be plagiarizing. 

I happen to agree with Han Ping Fung [see his previous post] about using quotations. Allow me to expound: just as we would do in a research paper or academic paper, IF we QUOTE and use QUOTATION MARK [ "  ...."] and IF we put the name of the author [credit/attribution], then it IS NOT plagiarism, and may be necessary or an enhancement and IS part of our research.  I have in the beginning of my time on RG placed large amounts of work of others in quotation marks and the link below it [reference] and given credit to the original author. I did this for the convenience for and out of respect for the RG members, so that they would not have to go to the site to read it, but could read it readily/immediately on the same post...."to get my point across", as well.  BUT over time [since April 2015], I have found that others on RG just simply put the 'essence' of the work/information/article, and the link as a reference on the post. So I have tried to follow suit, in order to make my posts shorter, EXCEPT where the quote of the work is IMPORTANT to make my point on my post more clear and so that it can be read immediately [accessible].  

I agree that if we use quotation marks, give the reference /location and the author's name that this is NOT plagiarism. HOWEVER, to find the information to support one's opinion is PART of research, and not plagiarism. In fact it is equivalent to doing a fact check! It is like proving to one's self that it IS or is NOT his/her original idea...and if it is not,  then this fact simply means that great minds think alike! [maybe not at the same time, but alike ! :)]. 

Plagiarism, of course, is not giving credit where credit is due, not using quotation marks [when exact words are used], and not giving a reference. NOT doing these things, which is plagiarism, is "NOT acceptable" as clearly stated by Fateh Mebarek-Oudina [see previous post]. Because I just referred to the first person to mention something about plagiarism not being acceptable on this RG thread, does not make me a plagiarizer. In fact it brings forth the words of Fateh Mebarek-Oudina, not mine, but with a mixture of my own words and thoughts. In fact, each of you should be going to this person's post to read what was actually written to be sure I am not misrepresenting what this person wrote and to discern what is my idea vs Fateh Mebarek-Oudina's idea [doing a fact check]. 

With all due respect, I would disagree with anyone who would think that using quotations with attribution and reference to support an idea which is not one's own original idea, is not research or science.  IF this were true, then the action of doing so and publishing a Literature Review would be considered not scientific and in itself plagiarism. Which I believe most, if not all of us on RG, would find hypocritical.

I remind most and introduce to some the acronym ALCOA (per US FDA):

Attributable

Legible

Contemporaneous

Original

Accurate 

IF we all, as scientists, agree that there is a method of referencing and citing/using citations of other's work, then the use of such work in this manner, that is not our own, is NOT plagiarism, nor is it to be condemned, but rather respected. Let us honor those who have the courage to refer to someone else's work, attribute it to the author and admit that someone else has great work and a great idea! 

That being said, I have not read work on RG that sounds or appears to be plagiarism. Call me naive or stupid. I am just saying that even my work, answering a few questions on RG, could be considered trying to gain points on RG, even though I use ALCOA. Let us use caution among ourselves.  

I will take a look at the work that has been linked. I must admit I have not read it yet. But it saddens me to think that researchers on RG are committing plagiarism. I would add that quotation marks are NOT required if the idea is attributable to a person [meaning it has been referenced/cited], when that person's exact words are not used. 

Call me a believer, that we are all honest on this site! Call me stupid, but I just do not want to think the worst is among us.

I like to answer questions IF I believe I know enough about the topic. I feel I am helping someone and that makes me feel good. I personally could care less about a rating or number of points I have or do not have. But must admit if feels good to get an upvote and feels bad to get a down vote. Fortunately that has only happened once  Not everyone will agree with everyone. And that is what downgrading is for, to let others know you do not agree with the posters opinions or statements. I personally never down grade. But if I read something that I thought was horrific or against humanity I would downgrade. If I thought someone was posting something that is FALSE, I would probably write them a message to say why it is false, where the correct information can be found and ask them to make a correction. If they failed to do this, then I believe I would post on their site my actions and where the correct information could be found. And IF I thought someone was plagiarizing I would contact RG.  Upgrading is to let others know that you like or agree with points made by the poster. RG rewards members who answer questions. How can we be against this ? 

YES, Dear Mariano Ruiz Espejo, I am against those who would plagiarize to gain higher RG scores. I just do not want to believe this is happening.

Respectfully to ALL,

Jeanetta Mastron

Dear George Stoica,

Thank you for your positive comment.

Actually I was expecting to have rotten tomatoes  to be thrown at me, not necessarily from you, but in general ! :) [it could still happen! ;)]

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastronn

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear ALL, 

I actually came back to this question because I am systematically going through each of the links that Ljubomir Jacić · 99.82 · 11.05 · Technical College Požarevac posted.

Regarding the third link that he posted for us to visit the following question posted by Malek Mohammadi 17.50 Khorasan Institute of Higher Education [as directed by  Ljubomir Jacić ]

"Is RG score important for researchers?

Hi

Is RG score important for researchers? If it is, Why?

Best Regards.

Posted at the following link:  www.researchgate.net/post/Is_RG_score_important_for_researchers/1

I would like the RG members who are viewing this thread to go to the answer posted by the following person to the above question: 

Issam Sinjab · 67.69 · 5.11 · Alumni University of Leicester & University of Sussex

I found Issam Sinjab's answer to tremendously help me to understand that there are some oddities to the 'system' of how the RG score is computed.  This may help others reading this thread as well. Although it does not address plagiarism per se that Mariano Ruiz Espejo of Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia Católica San Antonio de Murcia 42.97 addresses in THIS thread.

Thank you Ljubomir Jacić, for leading me/us to this link so that I could view the above as well.

Respectfully to All,

Jeanetta Mastron

Please NOTE: These should be TWO separate posts, but as many of you know RG does not make each post separate until a certain amount of time passes. I am not sure if it is 1/2 hour or 1 hour or what it is. But suffice it to say I do not have much time to wait to night to post them separately. So to George Stoica, I do apologize. I will separate out these two posts tomorrow night. Thank you Sir George for your understanding.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear ALL, because today 11-4-15 at 9:11 pm there are 4 upvotes and because I do not know for which part of this post the upvotes are meant, I will not split up this posts, as I stated that I would do tonight. I will leave it as is. I do hope this is acceptable. I hope I have more time in the future to wait to do two posts instead of one. 

Dear @Mariano, I do expect your response on this matter! This is your question.

Yes, Ljubomir, I have seen other fraudulent practices in RG which I will not say for do not give bad ideas to bad researchers. RG could do some actuations and we too. Thank you for your indications.

 An ongoing game, of getting upvotes, is for colleagues in the same university or institute who agree to cooperate in this play. Someone of them will ask a question (that has an answer in RG or in other internet sites) & the one, who asks, directs the question to active old participants in RG. Afterwards, the players will upvote answers of colleagues & you will see that they get POPULAR ANSWERS. They try to get an increase in RG score this way but it has just worked in few cases. Most of these collaborators still have very low RG scores ! which means that the RG management is, thankfully, awake & aware of such abuse or act of fraud.

Dear Nizar, 

Do you really think people have time for such games?

Dear Professor Béatrice Marianne Ewalds-Kvist,

Yes. A young man will ask a question ,e.g. in physics or in energy and then old participants (like me) recieve the question in the messages section. I answered few questions but I was surprised that the colleagues of the "asker" got the highest upvotes even if one of them will copy my answer. In the middle east, the time factor is not that important ! My regards.

P.S. : I tried to have a minimum of followers & following from my country & my university to avoid being upvoted for "non-scientific" reasons since I joined RG. My profile proves that.

Dear Manuel,

Some months ago I suggested to work out the behavioural code of social networks. The result was a simple failure: a single participant!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_want_to_help_editing_the_voluntarily_behavioural_rules_or_the_etiquette_of_discussing_in_social_networks

Dear All,

By the way, plagiarism may be useful for some “scientists” not only in RG. Unfortunately.

Dear Nizar Matar,

I have not had to ask my colleagues or countrymen to avoid my profile and threads, they avoid RG spontaneously.  

Dear All,

I feel that to be honorary author is a kind of practical and comfortable plagiarism.

Dear Nizar Matar,

I have also observed the game for up-votes you mentioned but I have not focused on the scores of players.  

Dear All,

I wish to add:

Validation of rubrics is not an area of expertise for me.

but I would suggest that you look at many examples of rubrics

that educators are using sucessfully. After that make one , and test it

on several writings or projects etc. that you have previously graded to see

how close it agrees with the grade and/or superiority, and that is has no bias.

Upon using Google to find papers on validating a rubric I found the following:

 "A method for collaboratively developing and validating a rubric", by Sandra Allen and John  Knight    http://www.westernu.edu/bin/oir/assessment/additional_resources/validating_a_rubric.pdf

"Developing, evaluating and validating a scoring rubric for written case reports"   by  Peggy R. Cyr, Kahsi A. Smith, India L. Broyles and Christina T. Holt               http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4207174/

"The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity  and educational consequences" by Anders Jonsson and Gunilla Svingby [2006]   https://www.pdx.edu/education/sites/www.pdx.edu.education/files/Scoring_Rubrics_(Reliability,Validity,Consequences).pdf

Please note a 5 point rubric is preferred over a 3 point rubric. I prefer a 10 point rubric for labs.

We have talked about validating the human/teacher, using a rubric. But if using a rubric, that too must be validated in order for the 'calibration' or validation of the teacher to be valid in itself.

I do hope this helps!!

Respectfully to ALL,

Jeanetta Mastron                                                                                             posted on 11-8-15 at 2:45 pm pst

http://www.westernu.edu/bin/oir/assessment/additional_resources/validating_a_rubric.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4207174/

https://www.pdx.edu/education/sites/www.pdx.edu.education/files/Scoring_Rubrics_(Reliability,Validity,Consequences).pdf

Dear @Andras, if you have time, spend some on my answer 65. Then You will get good info about what dear @Nizar was writing about. 

Neither my colleagues visit my answers!

Der Ljubomir,

It is no problem, that my colleagues do not participate in my threads or do not follow my publications. The trouble is that they do not ask and answer scientific issues in RG or elswhere. Certainly, this would not be a concern if there were there an open and intensive change of opinions on scientific matters and educational questions. However, it is not the case. I could classify this behaviour as a kind of isolation without splendour. What is the situation at your university and country?

Research Gate is a site which is highly valued by me & that is why I am writing this advice to its management: Please go over the profiles of some universities or institutes. When you see a department that contains an unreasonable number of members & do not see the photos of most of them then take care because a game may be going on. One member will register "fake" names & write a password for each one. Then he gives an answer & follows that by many upvotes for himself  by himself !! 

That is why I suggested that you give the lowest minimum positive count of upvotes from the same university or institute of the contributor. A scholar can be evaluated well if s/he recieves upvotes from outside his institution or his country. This is a scientific approach which will enhance the credibility of Research Gate.

Dear @Nizar, I do support your proposal. But, I am afraid that huge inertia is present in RG activities regarding such doings. Maybe direct contact with Community Support may bring the solution and prevent the erosion of ResearchGate's credibility!

Dear @Andras, your response about the colleagues describe almost the same situation in my Institution. There are only 7 RG members and no one take part in scientific discussion. I would say apathy is at the stage. The lack of motive also! This story may apply to whole country as just a few RG members from Serbia take part in Q&A!

Dear Nizar Matar,

You are very correct. Your suggestion is very rational and practical.

Dear Ljubomir,

This is a sad experience. Indeed. Open change of opinions is the best and practically unlimited opportunity we can realise. These days, when our institutions and countries are short of resources we cannot participate in international conferences but – fortunately – RG forums are open.

Plagiarism is to take the elaborated work of one person and do or reproduce it for other person in other place but with the second name without own elaboration and without citing the original author and source. It is to pretend make the work of one as of other. It is as to steal the work of one, and to steal (false) recognition for that work for other person. I do not agree with such way of proceeding, because the other person pretends fame or merits which does not accredite. His merit is not scientific but as of copying.

You have some very good points Artur.  But do not forget that there is a group of researchers from poorer countries, who like me, are in RG for RESEARCH, not just for voting as it is.  But if a post is good, I will upvote it.  And it has to be expressed clearly and correctly, so that it's understood by me at the first scan.  Thanks.

Dear Miranda,

The correction of clear expression would be important if all researcher would write in his/her mother language. Because to judge all participant with the unique criterium of English language does not do justice to all ones.

Imagine that a German person would do the same; the most part of the people would be incorrect and unclear. The same thing can be said of a French or a Spanish person, etc. There are criteria which beneficiate to a part of participants, always for the same part of them?

There are many researchers with excellent knowledge of English who do plagiarise! Official language of Researchgate is English. 

I didn't read the discussion, but to give my view of the original answer: there are not many criteria to measure scientific success. Some may compare impact factors within a given field of science (in one field I.F. 4 might be considered maximum, in another field just average, so one should not compare neuropathology with physics or mathematics). Some may compare the H-index or similar; but to the best of my knowledge no scientific institution I know would consider any points or score in RG as gold standard (sorry RG!), although I would be happy to use it. There may be different ways to artificially increase such a RG score: some students without papers (and therefore without accumulated impact factors) may just ask popular questions (which may be a bit plagiaristic) and then receive many answers and upvotes. At the end any real scientist may not look too much into any of such criteria (not RG score, but also not I.F. score or others). I've seen some scientists, good enough to publish preferentially in Science or similar - maybe not every year. That would be my dream, but the reality is different, I could just need 1-10 mio. USD to start my own company and, perhaps, publish some day my results...

RG-score is the idealistic mechanism for self-regulation of scientific community. But the reality is not so simple. There are some ways to increase it without any original scientific results or very advanced skills. I do not know any organization which use this parameter for decision-making (grants, fellowships, etc.).

It is self-evident. But the problem is dozen times more difficult - the scientometrics is very relative field. Citations, IF, h-index, etc. - are not absolute truth. There are some "cheats" for every parameters. It is like duel armour-bullet, thief-lock, etc. Dialectics.

I upvote only original answers and unobvious questions. Evident plagiarism or incompetence in the answer is the reason for "downvoting". Positive and negative feedbacks are equal important for self-regulation of community. 

If all scientific measure has possible defficiencies, this means that with them, am I informed worse? No.

I appreciate RG because it gives high score to good peer reviewed publications. And the participation in this gate is free, which is an equality measure for participants.

Dear Dr Ruiz Espejo,

I agree with your assessment of RG - it is very interesting project and has a spirit of democracy. Free participation is very important.

I do not know how does work the algorithm of RG-score calculations exactly. But it is possible to estimate it by some examples. The assessment of peer reviewed publication is not linear, for example (real persons):

Researcher A: RG-score 27.57 Impact points 88.6     

Researcher B: RG-score 46.99 Impact points 1460.98

Both do not have answers/questions, just publications.

And two persons with a lot of answers/questions:

Researcher C: RG-score 84.37 Impact points 22.2     

Researcher D: RG-score 133.32 Impact points 105.94

They all are good researchers, but the distribution of RG-score is strange. The contribution of impact points and answers/questions is incomparable.

In addition, it is possible to have high (>30) RG-score without any peer reviewed publications (!). In my opinion, it is very strange.    

Thank you, Denis. My surnames are Ruiz Espejo, and Espejo is the second surname (from mother).

I think that there are many variables which could have influence in RG score, as participation, recognition of other participants, education, years of teaching, etc.