Imaging you are allowed to ask questions, but researchers are not allowed to provide answers.
Imagin you share ideas with the goal of contributing to the growth of knowledge but other researchers or school of thoughts cannot challenge those ideas.
Are not these actions blocks to the growth of knowledge a la Thomas Kuhn by discouraging academic discourse and opening the door to academic tunneling or the persistency of outdated ideas?
Does research now need to be published in secret or in closed research rooms?
And this situation raises the question, Researchers are not allowed to challenge even positively the ideas other researchers share, is that scientific regression or not?
What do you think?
Could you please explain what you mean by "researchers are not allowed to provide answers"? Where is this not allowed? Do you mean the restrictions to the Message function introduced by ResearchGate some months ago because scammers with fake accounts used this function?
I ask the question because researchgate now does not allow you to make comments on research they share with you published by others as they think apparently that academic discourse is bad. Check any article, even the ones you agree with now, but as of March 01 you can not longer make comments.
I also regret about this, but I guess that the decision was due to the misuse of the Comments function by scammers. For more information, see my contribution to this discussion: https://www.researchgate.net/post/RG_discontinued_Comments_on_research_items
My guess is it is that it is academic related. If you take the time to comment on any of my papers, POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, I will reply. If I see an opportunity to let other know they may be missing something that they should know or that they may not know, I comment. Most times no reply or replay thank you, and that is fine with me as now they know there are other views out there they should know or be aware off.
You will find 254 items by me in researchgate through the years, NO ONE HAS TRIED TO SCAM ME. And very few comments.
The solution would have been, give researchers a choice, DO YOU WANT PEOPLE TO COMMENT ON YOUR RESEARCH OR NOT? IF THEY SAY YES, THEN THE COMMENT LINK SHOULD BE THERE. IF THEY SAY NO, THEN NO COMMENT LINK. If they share with me an article with no comment link I will ignore it as I will see it as most likely ACADEMICALLY weak.
My guess may be as good as your guess, by my guess is on the academic side, not the scam theory side.
Thank you for commenting
Lucio
I have seen such scam comments. They were quite cleverly made and not necessarily immediately recognizable as scam.
Why to affect every one, choice is a good thing when trying to improve things? I have, not seen them and I have commented a lot, and my comments are polite, but academically sound... why to use the scam theory to promote, albeit unintentionally academic tunneling by restricting points of healthy academic discourse? I WOULD WELCOME COMMENTS ON ANY OF MY ITEMS IN RESEARCHGATE....
Steve, from my point of view, this move of banning comments on publications shared is a move towards a site for academic propaganda.... Than is a thought contrary to Thomas Kuhn's paradigm evolution loop thinking and the needs for the growth of scientific knowledge.... To fight the theory of SCAMMERS with banning academic discourse.....
Dear Lucio Muñoz,
Yes, that is scientific regression. Science thrives on critical analysis, debate, and the continuous refinement of ideas. If researchers are restricted from questioning or building upon others' work, progress stagnates, and errors remain unchallenged. The advancement of knowledge depends on constructive criticism, peer review, and the evolution of theories based on new evidence. Suppressing this process hinders innovation and scientific growth.
Best regards,
Zylfije Tahiri
Sylfije, yes I see this move as academic regression, and it seems to be aimed a protecting european researchers from criticism as in the area of development thinking evolution recently seem to be going either backwards(like if WCED 1987 and UNCSD Rio +20 never happened) or in deep down double down(like polluting in circles is better than polluting linearly), that is where the focus of my comments has been.... If banning comments is a political decision, then the growth of science in researchgate/EUROPE is in danger....
One....I am my biggest commenter. I add stuff to my publications this way. Now I can't, so I use the discussion page.
Two...how do you cite a publication with a lot of back and forth. It really is a discussion.
Three...go there and discuss. That's what I do. I can comment on my discussions to my heart's content. I build much bigger and probably better publications this way and I like it. One bite at a time. Then...If I want to bundle it into a publication...cool. Here...I attach an image of a Devonian corralite...that might be pyrophyllite. It is from a new location that extends the range of rock units in the Andes and allows paleogeographic reconstructions...or it facilitates geochemical alteration studies around an important place. So...discuss away.
Steve, the question is: Researchers are not allowed to challenge the ideas that other researchers share, even positively, is that scientific regression or not?. It requires your opinion, no need for citations if you want.... Is this academic/scientific regression or not?
Please, clear my mind about your meaning of 'scientific regression' therm, that need to be presented in any cases.
Pavel, did you read the SCIENCE BASED context on which this question is based JUST BELOW the question? If yes, perhaps you did not need to answer a question with a question....
then what is your view on the answer to this question on regression/BACKWARD MOVE related to actual RESEARCHGATE actions.
I will reply if you take the time to answer the question at hand,yes, why or no, why not.
- Badges
- Science topic