Scientists want maximum diffusion and maximum prestige when it comes to the choice of publication outlet options. Prestigious publication outlets are controled by groups of prestigious scientists according the highest scientific standards held by these groups. RG so far is totally open and like any open publication outlet it do not provide stewardship regarding the highest scientific standards. The best these open publication outlets could do, is to provide a quality score to each publication. What is neeed is to establish a reliable method of scientific collaboration towards the attribution of these quality scores. The future of RG publication system will depend on the quality of the method of attribution of quality scores. If such a method is embraced by a significant portion of the scientific community, only then will RG have a chance of success of becoming a popular universal and prestigious publication outlet.

Dear Louis, I totally agree with your comments. But, in order to a reliable (or not) score exist it is fundamental the initial action of some pioneers... It is necessary that such pioneers choose to publish here in RG instead in any other place. In this way, my question remains: Who have courage to do this? I should confess that I don´t. I believe that many basic questions should be solved in order to foster the emergence of such pioneers:

1) A way to ensure the copyrights of each publication made here

2) A clear and reliable way to cite the results (or articles) published here

3) A way to ensure the integrity of the articles and data, protecting them of any unauthorized modification or utilization

Even so, would you be a pioneer?

Walter,

You know scientific publishing started with the foundation of different scientific societies like the academie des sciences , royal societies, etc. It is time to have a modern international version of such academy; it is up to RG organisation to make their platform attractive enough so it can become this international academy. Your sudgestions are very good. But a lot of money should be spent by Gate in order to do a little bit of public relation with the scientific elite and to put them in the driver seat of this organisation.

RG seems like a terrible option for 'publishing' results. Searching, indexing, etc... appear to be an afterthought at best, and it's not terribly well known/used within many fields. For physics (my field), putting something up on the arXiv preprint server makes it more widely available, indexed by several sites (SPIRES is commonly used in my area). In a field where there isn't a web site where papers can be submitted/stored, RG is better than nothing. But it's hard to say anything more positive than that. If this is their ambition, they'll have to do a lot of work to make it even a moderately useful option, and a lot more to make it in any way competitive with other publishing options (even if one isn't worried about prestige - just getting results out there).

Thank you John and Louis for your contributions.

Well, I agree with John... I think that something should be done in order to make RG a more atractive option. In my viewpoint, if RG really want to be a channel for scientific publications, it need to stablish a minimum security structure (including the three points I quoted above) in order to encourage the first pioneers to publish here. I would like to know the opinion of other colleagues about this! So, let´s carry on...

If I have such data, I would keep it for further work and publish it in indexed scientific journal or publish the exact data as a scientific short note. That will give me the credit for this work. Otherwise, publishing in RG may cause spreading the information with no credit for me because RG is not accepted as a reference in the majority of the reviewed scientific journals.

Mustafa