Dear Asmat,

Without experience in Science 2.0 one cannot make a comparison. I can say that RG works well and its opportunities are not really used.

Respected András Bozsik,

Science 2.0 is about sharing papers, ideas, research finds etc. I think all of us are already experiencing it in at platforms like RG, Facebook and Twitter etc.

Dear @Asmat, I think that Science 2.0 will be another tool besides RG to serve the scientific community; which of these tools will stay alive and which will merge is a matter of smartness and reliability.

@Abedallah M Rababah, thanks for contributing and sharing your views. Indeed, which of these tools will stay alive and which will merge is a matter of smartness and reliability. I agree with you.

Dear Asmat,

Thanks for your information.

A lot of data and experience from the number of participants till the availability of publications matter which one should directly experience.

Respected Prof. Kamal,

Thanks for joining. I agree with you but still I think sharing of research datasets e.g. GIS files, Remote Sensing Images, GPS, Excel and SPSS etc files used by various researchers during their studies is not visible. 

Respected András Bozsik,

Thanks for quick reply and active contribution. You are right, indeed.

Respected Prof. Kamal,

Remarkable reply, The network of friends which I establish through RG is more valuable to me than a mountains of diamonds. But have you ever validated a famous saying, " A friend in need is a friend indeed" with your RG friends and what have been the results, please?

Probably RG is a very good, an excellent tool, but until now it cannot be used as a formal evaluation tool: You cannot say at your Department: "Guys, take a look at my RG activity as an index of my academic quality". They will just answer to you: "What are your publications and in what journals?" So, we need much more time in order to obtain something formal from RG. Of course it helps us clarify our thoughts and many other benefits exist, otherwise we wouldn't spend so much time here.

Respected Prof Kamal,

You are absolutely right, consent of both parties is essential.

Demetris Christopoulos,

Welcome and thanks for joining. I agree with you,

RG helps us clarify our thoughts and many other benefits exist, otherwise we wouldn't spend so much time here.

That's true, still publications and their Impact Factor is questioned by many to evaluate scientific reputation/ability/popularity. 

Certainly, Researchgate  is the best collaborative tool for “sharing papers, research ideas, partial solutions and research findings online.

I think that there is a confusion about science 2.0..

Science 2.0 is not a network like RG!. The term Science 2.0 suggests a contrast between traditional ways of doing science. The term "Science 2.0" was introduced several years ago to describe online-based medium for research, documentation and collaboration in analogy with the “Web 2.0” term coined for the description of the next generation of internet.

RG created something called "Science 2.0" using social media tools. According to RG Website, "communication between scientists will accelerate the distribution of new knowledge.

I think that RG is a fun way of learning, collaboration and making friends all over the world. 

http://generegulation.info/teifpdf/Science30_v26.pdf

Dear Behrouz,

Thanks for contributing. You are absolutely right to say Science 2.0 is not a network , it focuses on information-sharing and collaboration made possible by using network technologies. To promote collaboration mentioned in the intro of this question, RG is a tool. 

Respected Prof. Kamal,

I like your encouraging and engaging attitude.

Dear Asmat Ali,

First of all, I want to thank you for raising this very important topic. Once I want to say, I fully welcome Science 2.0 as a new direction of "disseminating knowledge".

In my view, Science 2.0 is many times more democratic and effective than traditional Science 1.0. at all points. 

To draw your attention, please compare: ( from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_2.0 )

Science 1.0: Research done privately; then submitted to journals; then peer-reviewed by gatekeepers in major journals; published

Science 2.0: Research data shared during discovery stages; ideas shared; scientists collaborate; then findings are disseminated online

Science 1.0: Scientific literature behind paywalls online

Science 2.0: Scientific discoveries free online

Science 1.0: Credit established by journal name or journal impact factor

Science 2.0: Credit established by citation count, number of views or downloads

Science 1.0: Data is private until publication

Science 2.0: Data is shared before publication

Science 1.0: Papers generally protected by copyright

Science 2.0: Many different licenses possible: copyright, public domain, Creative Commons 3.0, etc.

Science 1.0: Publishers raise funds by charging for access to content

Science 2.0: Publishers seek alternative funding models

Science 1.0: Journal article summaries available online after publication

Science 2.0: Share methods, data, findings via blogs, social networking sites wikis, computer networking, Internet, video journals

I'm sure that Science 2.0 "will swallow" Science 1.0 in the near future.

Now I want to share my particular interest to Science 2.0 from the point of view of Research-Practice gap. As you all know, currently this gap is very huge. Before I wrote about this problem (e.g. on the link https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_dont_developers_use_the_best_research_on_software_development ). In my understanding, only developments can reduce this gap. Therefore, now I want to make an offer: at least in Compurer Science, A PAPER MUST BE PRESENTED AS A FUNCTIONAL SITE. In order wors, need to move from the Traditional Paper (e.g. in .pdf) to the Online Tool (e.g. in ASP.NET) in the Internet. This tool should be available to all people (researchers, practitioners, users) to solve their tasks (for personal data) just by clicking the link.

Yes I agree with Dr. Kamal, RG has been an extremely collaborative tool and helped me know so many like minded people that I am very grateful for !

 Respected Gennady Fedulov,

Welcome and thanks for joining. I appreciate your superb reply. It is so detailed that no one can deny it. Thanks for making visible excellent, exciting and worth noting information about Science 2.0. I fully endorse as well as support your magnificent contribution.

“Science 2.0 "will swallow" Science 1.0 in the near future”. Perfect.

Research-Practice gap can only be reduced by developments. 

I fully support your idea that "A PAPER MUST BE PRESENTED AS A FUNCTIONAL SITE". I think it would be quite useful for the entire Research and Development (R&D) as well as teaching community.

Thanks for sharing the existing thread also. I see tremendously good and valuable points added by you there.

Best Regards

asmat

Dear Gennady, your post really encouraged me, since I am one more young researcher who always find 'closed doors' after submitting my articles to the 'respected journals' for publishing. Indeed you helped me. Thank you.

@ Jaya Vikas Kurhekar, thanks for contributing.You are right, RG connects like minded people.

@ Demetris Christopoulos, it is good to know that you found reply from @ Gennady quite useful. Thanks for participating.

Networked science is in its forst steps. In the future we have to see a lot of developments around this. Thinking of RG one can say that it is a very nice science network. Each one of us however has a limited time to devote to science networks. Imagine that you are in three or more networks! It sound impossible. From this point of view there should be a very convenient network that fulfils its members. This might be RG, or other network.

See,

[Ted_G._Lewis]_Network_Science_-_Theory_and_Applications

Reinventing Discovery_ The New Era of Networked Science  

After trying other sites, I found RG the best collaborative tool. Through RG, I learned a lot, I have been capable of updating my knowledge in many subjects including my fields of interest, I helped some young scientists with my "humble" experience, and above all I gained (as friends) many respected distinguished scholars from all over the world.

Dear Asmat Ali,

I very thank you for your words to me.

Dear Demetris Christopoulos,

I very thank you for your kind review.

Using this opportunity, I want to present to your consideration my draft as "Conception.doc". This draft was written on the proposal of Prof. V.M.Moskovkin during our personal communications. The text is written in Russian but you can use Google Translator ( https://translate.google.com/ ) to translate into another language.

Thank you in advance

Dear Gennady,

Your remark

“A PAPER MUST BE PRESENTED AS A FUNCTIONAL SITE.” Is very encouraging and promising.

Dear all,

I would like to tell you about the project we are working on, because it may quite well fit into the current discussion. It is the

LEXICON OF ARGUMENTS

(see the link below). 

It is not a single paper, of course, and it is not a social network like RG. It is located in between an empty table of contents and a full text. It is a platform for abstracts and excerpts, a pre-print and postprint server – showcasing decisive statements and arguments in synopses. It is open for contributions of any field.

- arguments/statements are shown in relation to definitions – controversies – scientific camps

- automatic export/import from/to reference management software (Mendeley, zotero, Citavi, EndNote)

- the names of the authors are open to the Google search

- it’s permanently updated – displaying the state of the art

- the project is not an alternative, of course, but an addition to existing forms.

What might be a bit perplexing is that the lexicon is not a collection of papers, but of the decisive thoughts! Here, in the lexicon you can publish what you wanted to tell your fellows who do not have the time to read the full texts – as we all know, we all do not have time.

- restriction to 500 characters – plus indication of the reference (URL or paper) – plus your name or a User-ID.

- it will help others to get a quick overview and to localize your work in the context.

- corrections are possible – but they do not take place in public.

We are proposing projects for universities with professors and lecturers as editors for their field of specialization. Graduate students can take their first steps (pre-print) – the editor’s name is also published – the university can apply for funding.

Currently we work on the field of analytic philosophy. (Approx. 10.000 entries) We invite you to take part for your field of specialization.

You haven’t heard of the Lexicon of Arguments before? Well, we are quite new. Have Fun! And thank you for your patience. I am not a salesman. The lexicon is for free anyway.

Maybe it is something that you would call a functional site, Gennady?

(The link on my RG account is much too big to download, please use the one below).

www.philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com

Respected Costas Drossos,

Thanks for contributing and providing a useful link.

Respected Dr. Nizar Matar,

I like that you always share with us your experience. I agree with you, we all find peers around the world on RG.

Respected Gennady Fedulov,

I really appreciate your active contribution. Thanks for sharing the document.

Respected Cecilia Lewis Kausel,

Thanks for joining. I love your remarks, “Just stick to your research in using a science network”. Perfect. It is really a very good advice as well as recommendation. Much appreciated.

Respected Martin Schulz,

Welcome. It is really interesting to know about LEXICON OF ARGUMENTS. I did not know it before so thanks for making it discoverable. You are absolutely right, time poverty is an important issue. Hope to see you soon, there.

I agree with dear @Cecilia that it is still early to judge the potential of research networks.  

Respected Abedallah M Rababah,

Thanks for contributing and expressing your views.

Dear Asmat, yes RG is a better place for collaboration and  sharing scientific ideas with experts and friends. It is a place where you can express your ideas with full freedom...

My dear friends, dear @Asmat, I like ResearchGate very much for many reasons that were elaborated many times before, as many of you are aware of. I really have got a lot of good connections, friendships.... that Science 2.0 does not know!

As some colleagues had some questions about Science 2.0 , I do recommend a fine paper, it is available here at Research Gate, for better understanding Science 2.0!

Conference Paper Understanding Science 2.0: Crowdsourcing and Open Innovation...

Dear @Asmat, I find this description of RG very good :"In the end you can say that everything exists already on the web and basically there is nothing new about ResearchGate, but the really interesting thing is the idea to connect professionals with each other and not everyone with everyone. Finally ResearchGate sounds like LinkedIn but the idea behind is more a humanistic idea to build a community of researchers, with no distinctions of disciplines or nations, for a free exchange of knowledge."

http://whataboutscience.com/2011/12/12/science-2-0-weekly-researchgate/

I also agree that Research Gate is more valuable to me than other sites. I encourage all researchers  to participate on it.

Science 2.0 and RG are on the same part of the road.

The principal demand now and in the not so far from us future, is not a static list of publications (obtained by one way -paid- or another -not paid-) but a 'holistic researcher personality', who will be able to ask and answer questions, in platforms similar or extended to RG, without editors, reviewers and other publishing industry constraints.

Don't you wonder why so many people with dozens of formal publications do not even try to ask or answer something here in RG and they have just a static repository of their (according to them) very significant contribution?

Do you really believe that this static situation will last for a long time from now?

If you believe so, then you have to ask music industry companies to tell you what happened after the introduction and the success of youtube...

RG or something similar will be proved to be the YouTube of Science...

Dear Ratan,

I agree with that RG is place where you can express your ideas with full freedom.

Respected Ljubomir Jacić, Shafig Ibrahim Al-Haddad, Hashem Adnan Kilani

It is true that on RG every one gets lot of good connections and friendships. Thanks for sharing links of the quite useful papers.

Dear Demetris Christopoulos,

Thanks for participating actively and giving feedback. I endorse your questions:

Don't you wonder why so many people with dozens of formal publications do not even try to ask or answer something here in RG and they have just a static repository of their (according to them) very significant contribution?

Do you really believe that this static situation will last for a long time from now?

Dear Kamal,

I think you give me trouble! I may choose that mountains of diamonds, and I believe we should continuo to be friends :) 

Respected Prithvi Simha,

Thanks for contributing with such a nice and detailed post. I really appreciate it. You have raised couple of very important and interesting questions, I acknowledge that.

You are absolutely right to take note that many BIG names are on RG but they never take part or contribute in discussions. I know many of them if not all but please don’t ask me to name them. The reasons may be best known to them.

However, please see thread (especially concluding remarks). You may find some possible answers to your above question and curiosity.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_there_volunteers_to_be_advisors_if_not_supervisors_for_PhD_students_of_developing_countries?_tpcectx=profile_questions

It is true, some researcher are so experienced, active and smart that they contribute with good and quite relevant answers in most of the interdisciplinary threads. As I always say, it is the era of convergence of various knowledge and technologies. Therefore, I appreciate such researchers very much. They encourage us by participating and contributing. You will see most of them in my threads. I suggest you to start a thread in order to have feedback directly from these researchers.

I agree with @ Cecilia Lewis Kausel , It is [bit] early to judge the potential of research networks. Their usefulness depends on self-discipline; but it is definitely a tool with potential like no other.

You are absolutely right, there seems to be a kind of resistance within our community on the definition of Science 2.0 because still the concept is in its infancy (others have right to disagree). I am pretty sure, dedicated researchers and developers like Respected Gennady Fedulov would never surrender till it is widely accepted. Moreover, time and technology changes us. So let us wait and see.

Thanks once again for your magnificent post and contribution.

Best Regards

asmat

Something more on Researchgate and WEB 2.0 free of charge! Fine!

Dear @Prithvi, I share your attitude toward 2.0. issues!

http://scitechnet.blogspot.com/2008/06/researchgate-scientific-network.html

I would like to give just one word answer and that is Yes..

Every tool has its own advantage and limitation. More so each collaboration tool had started to carve and culture a niche place such as Socialization, Education, Corporate Links, General Search etc.,,

Undoubtedly RG is the Best tool now available for better collaboration among researchers

I agree Krishnan,  RG has been an excellent tool through which we have the opportunity to interact with people of different backgrounds/cultures/countries, learn about different subjects (other than our very narrow field if expertise) through Q/A and give us the possibility of collaboration with other researchers.

I am glad to be on RG - Dear Ahed, I agree, addiction  can be a problem.

Here is a question: the growing corpus of answers is owed to a growing corpus of questions that overlap many times. – Is the overlapping a problem? What do you think?

I have little time using RG and truly captivated me, I have used others like LinkedIn, Academia.edu, but my experience with the RG has overpassed them; the researchers interaction system is well designed, as well as this system of Q&A also helpful.

I follow you RG!!

Yes Raidell, agree with you. Comparatively among LinkedIn, Academiaedu, nanopaprika and many others , RG is more effective, suitable and best network for researcher. Now-a-days, I don't have time for Facebook. Without opening RG a/c, NO WAY. But problem is when we are in outstation. RG APP is good option for that.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/ResearchGate_iPhone_app-good_idea_or_waste_of_time?cp=re65_x_p3&ch=reg&loginT=5iF_YUwY4Nn9cPe8mSVqUeG_o0J07UBCxC0vd1Bi279V9E1ZQ7ot7A%2A%2A&pli=1#view=53cd0fb0d685ccc5418b45c5

waiting for RG APP.

you can tell some strong ATTRACTIVE FORCE is here.   RG becomes my Facebook. Thanks to RG and all RG members.

But in RG, we have to solve several issues, I feel. For that, you may go through the following link:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Several_issues_on_Researchgate_What_you_think_regarding_that?_tpcectx=profile_highlights

I haven't been on RG long and am still deciding re its worth compared to Academia or Linked In.... RG certainly encourages more interaction.

I'm interested in how the RG score works - you get 'rewarded' for answering questions and for 'upvotes' on your answers. So a high RG score doesn't necessarily mean you've published a lot or have a large number of citations. It could mean that you spend a lot of time on RG answering questions - and of course providing answers that people value.

Dr. Maria, I speak for myself : My RG score last week was 28.91. In the past week, I got 109 upvotes from scholars from all over the world (some of whom have very high RG scores) but this moved my RG score only to 29.81. I don't think that we are at  RG for the score. In my opinion, getting respected distinguished scholars as friends is the most valuable aspect of RG. Also when I offer a "humble" help for a young student doing research & my help works, I really become very happy. In addition to that, I have learnt a lot from RG. At my old age, I am not looking for any prestige or any promotion.

Dear Dr. Maria, welcome again in RG and thank you for opinion. I completely agree with Dr. Nizar. Although my score is low,It is true for me also.  Last to last week my RG was 8.58, last week 8.56 and now it is 8.54, although my some of the answer upvoted. I don't bother about that.The motivation of RG is completely different. Knowledge sharing, interaction. And you can quickly update your folder by seeing updates of other group's new publication. 

upvoting doesn't mean that I want to increase my friend's RG. We are upvoting the answer because the answer is logical and we agree withthe answer.

High RG doesn't mean that lot of publication. If you carefully notice, beside RG another score used to be there. That second score is represent your publication. To clear it go to your 'following' and 'follower' list and this discussion. For example Ljubomir Jacić  63.44  7.75     The first one is RG and second one for publication.

Dr. Ljubomir, don't mind please.

I think RG is a great and an unmatched platform considering its contribution to research interactions. My PhD work as been greatly helped from the interactions i have made on RG.

I believe so! If the development continuous the same path it will be a invaluable network science tool. 

Respected Shafig Ibrahim Al-Haddad,

Happy Eid to you and every one.

I consider RG as the most structured dexterous and effectual web-platform for researchers that provide tremendous opportunity to connect, interact and share your research ideas, endeavors and accomplishments with people of different countries/socio-cultural/academic backgrounds. I could connect myself with researchers of my field as well as of diverse areas through RG. Its Q & A section is unique where researcher can express their thought/opinion on a specific aspect/subject and it is really interesting to see views and comments on the same question from followers of assorted fields. It is particularly beneficial for research students who get their quarries satisfactorily answered through this tool. The Q&A section is a very important and powerful feature of RG and it should be made more purposeful by avoiding duplication and promoting meaningful answers.

No doubt RG playing a very vital role for transforming knowledge among the researchers all over the world.

Yes, indeed

I, having the Eastern and Western roots, think, that RG is the best way of collaboration. It's a humanistic platform.

Since it has attracted 4.5m researchers (27% from commercial institutions as I've read recently in a thread here) from which 10% contribute on a regular basis. Maybe more researchers are active on Twitter or Facebook but on RG we are just more focused by Q&A sections and even Projects. 

RG is by far a better social network service for us than commercialized and unstructured Facebook and Twitter. In a recent article in Nature RG was compared with Mendeley and other competitors, see the link below.

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

Wonderful place to exchange opinions and learn through an "end to end" way. At the same time, too much slow to evolve its 2.0 infrastructure, becoming a real HPW platform. It means that too much financial strategy stays in the background, waiting for big funds — I'm sure, for good aims. But the alternative, that is opening a portion of the architecture, harvesting bottom-up issues and contributes from a so rich / expert groundbase of participants (us!), seems not to live amid the RG's principles.

—g

https://plus.google.com/u/0/app/basic/stream/z12ysnqw2ty5xdd2x222t30o5urudvclc?cbp=1pn5q15qpxjco&sview=27&cid=5&soc-app=115&soc-platform=1&spath=%2Fu%2F0%2Fapp%2Fbasic%2F%2BCMSExperiment%2Fposts&sparm=cbp%3D17yye12xxahbl%26sview%3D2%26cid%3D5%26soc-app%3D115%26soc-platform%3D1%26spath%3D%2Fu%2F0%2Fapp%2Fbasic%2Fstream%26sparm%3Dcbp%253D150gd67clya2s%2526sview%253D31%2526cid%253D5%2526soc-app%253D115%2526soc-platform%253D1

the best thing i feel about RG is "its a live thing' , i mean to say that i cannot see other research sharing sites so lively so interactive as RG. what so ever the standard the science fallows whether 2.0 or above the mutual interaction among the scholars and researchers going to  progress  via mediums like RG....

RG is definitely better.

Dear All,

Now, I have read thorough all the answers of this thread. Interestingly, most of the remarks were “sympathy” comments for RG except that of Gennady who tried to examine and compare objectively Science 1.0 and Science 2.0 but not RG.

Why has nobody prepared at least a quasi-scientific evaluation about RG and Science 2.0? Why?

Dear @Andras,  how popular is ResearchGate.net is described in the following link provided by alexa.com! Interesting statistics and comparisons!

Many interesting questions are answered, like "Where do researchgate.net's visitors come from?", "Who visits researchgate.net?", "Where do researchgate.net's visitors come from?", ...!

The question "Which sites did people visit immediately before this site?" gives the expected response, Google !!!

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/researchgate.net

I was doing some research on Science 2.0 and Research Gate, and I am going to attach some views by the appropriate links.

"...European scientific publishers are leading experiments in open and data-intensive services. Mendeley and Research Gate, both based in Europe, are already global players in social networking for scientists...."- 1st link.

The second link gives the book Cyberscience 2.0: Research in the Age of Digital Social Networks  where some analysis on topic were done!

Why I’m Evaluating ResearchGate - the 3rd link by Brian Kelly - member of RG- link 4!

Hope it will bring more lite to the issues raised by @Andras.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-489_en.htm

http://books.google.rs/books?id=tAf4FhXWS0kC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/why-im-evaluating-researchgate/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brian_Kelly

I have a question for all of you: Does RG have a state for us being vacations, where there is no internet, not to punish us for that?

I am veyy please to see the answer of my honorable researchers regarding RG no doubt that RG provide a mile stone for sharing and imparting knowledge among researchers all over the world. 

I do not have any experience with other networks, like  Science 2.0, so I cannot compare. According to our mates RG is better.

Good for sharing the research, better for establishing valuable links among researchers distributed across the length and breadth of the

whole world. RG is priceless.

Yes I am agreed with all researchers views, Kind Regards. 

RG has provided me the opportunity to interact with people of diverse discipline that enabled to to be benefited with their expertise in respective areas. I fully agree with the statement of Prof Kamal that “the network of friends which we could establish through RG is more valuable than a mountain of diamonds". I feel much contented when I answer quarries of research student and solve their problems through this esteemed platform.

The best tool to share and be benefited for research, RG is undoubtedly the best collaborative tool.

Yes RG is a better collaborative tool for “sharing papers, research ideas, partial solutions and research findings etc” online. It is the unique and one of its kind -- the best platform. 

"scientific workflow and scientific collaboration are two key techniques to support scientific data analysis and management. The convergence of the two trends naturally leads to a concept that we coined as collaborative scientific workflow, meaning that multiple scientists are involved and collaborate in the entire lifecycle of a work-flow: its design, revision, execution, monitoring, and management. As the first step, we focus on design-time collaboration, aiming to build techniques and a tool to support collaborative scientific workflow"...

As RG facilitates the above said, hence it is an effective tool for Science.

http://faculty.cs.niu.edu/~zhang/JiaZhang-Confucius-TSC.pdf

Yes I 100% sure about all above opinion because RG is one of them best link who provide which we want.

@Kuldeep Dhama; @Krishnan Umachandran; @Dr. Prashant Vishnu Sonwane

I appreciate your contributions. Thanks. 

LaTeX, created in the early 1980s by Leslie Lamport, is a collaborative compiling tool which allows the writer to focus on the content without worrying about the formatting. However, LaTeX has a steep learning curve because on has to learn commands and install packages. It is used for mathematics, physics and computer science disciplines.

While LaTeX is suitable for preparation of individual output, RG is for collaborative search output tool for Review of Literature, Citations, Expert comments and Reviews etc.,

Did you realize that ResearchGate is celebrating 5 million members!? WOW!

https://news.researchgate.net/

Thanks for so kind words my dear and highly respected @Kamal! Behind everything we have found as a problem, bug or misunderstanding, RG community is strong scientific community which connected people who became friends, not only virtual!

RG is wonderful, from my institute many members have joined last year, and its analysis and friend circle is amazing, and Q&A discussions keeps one lively and positive too  

My dear @Kuldeep, what happened! You were absent so long from RG community! I have missed @Ruchi and you! Welcome back!

Thanks Dear Ljubomir, I was busy in many activities as well in between not keeping good health, but now today have come back to meet you all, thanks for remembering me, I also missed all of you, and today answered few questions and discussions and happy to see immediate response of everbody.

regards

Kuldeep 

I fully agree with Prof. Ljubomir, Prof Kamal and Dr. Kuldeep. With 5 million members currently on board, RG is matchless in its format. Discussions on Q&A platform are so lively that sometimes it gives impression of F2F intimate conversation. I could connect myself with so many distinguished and wonderful friends whom I regard as great source of wisdom and inspiration through this great virtual forum.