I have seen an increase in "projects" at ResearchGate recently. Some of them appear to be valid science projects seeking to expand ideas or their network base, but others appear to simply be an exploration, or exploitation, of a platform that allows access to potentially millions of "project" participants. This issue becomes important if such projects are for-profit, if they are meant to generate funding, or if they are voluntary seeking-knowledge only type projects (e.g., to start a discussion group). For example, how does one acknowledge, or compensate a "project contributor" who has offered valuable advice or ideas here at RG to a project that later receives handsome funding?
Therefore, I think that it is important for all "project" leaders to clearly specify the project leaders, the physical location of the project, and any funding that may be received for the project. Even if the idea to use RG is to start a project, then such mid- to long-term objectives should be clearly stated. One corrupting factor in the sciences are hidden truths about funding or conflicts of interest (COIs), and we should request that such information be clearly indicated. If no funding has been received, then this should also be clearly stated as "No funding received", and if there are no COIs, then a statement that says "No conflicts of interest" should also accompany each ResearchGate "project". Ideas are welcomed.
I must be an innocent here, because it had not occurred to me that projects were anything other than genuine cases seeing who was interested. The ones I have contacted are obviously just scientific, and it would not have occurred to me that they were sponsored by commercial interests. But i guess it is good practice for a project to tell us if it has a funding base: A National Academy of Science grant would seem fine; one from "Global Exploitation Inc" less so
would RG be prepared to set this excellent requests in a standard form for project reporting?
I might put my project at its early stage of development with a hope that the comments can hell improve it before its submission? Or an informal project that is based on the shared interest but not funding... Probably it is good idea to state this clearly
I must be an innocent here, because it had not occurred to me that projects were anything other than genuine cases seeing who was interested. The ones I have contacted are obviously just scientific, and it would not have occurred to me that they were sponsored by commercial interests. But i guess it is good practice for a project to tell us if it has a funding base: A National Academy of Science grant would seem fine; one from "Global Exploitation Inc" less so
Valid projects (with funding from competitive calls) should incorporate or indicate such details. A "personal line of work" or research interests, should not be included as "project" though.
Ewald, Zaal, Robert and Diego, some really excellent comments and suggestions. It seems that this is an uncharted and unregulated part of RG, although I suspect that RG might not wish to regulate "projects" so as not to inhibit the creation or exchange of "fresh" ideas. Diego, would a call for papers by a journal or editor be considered, in your opinion, as a valid "project" at RG?
Dear
I agree with Ewald, Zaal, Robert and Diego ,
regards
Was my concern foretelling? A 52 million US$ COI hidden from the public since November 2015.
"The latest investment contributed to the launch of a new feature called Projects. Since its inception in March 2016, scientists have created more than half a million Projects, updating peers and the world about ongoing research, including scientific data."
https://www.researchinformation.info/news/researchgate-announces-52m-investment
Well, Artur, I refer to the rule, in general, and not to exceptional cases such as that (I guess the same principle applies to preprints) and I suspect that the arguments for or against citing them will be endless. I think we are witnessing an unprecedented level of fact and literature bias and possible manipulation, in highly unregulated territory. Naturally, both sides of the argument are welcomed, but I suspect that it will be the platform host, publisher, server etc who will determine the rules of engagement.
All: is it only me who found a notification about a new answer to the thread by Artur:
E-Mail: received Di [Tues] 26.12.2017 17:55
Conc.: Artur Sergyeyev added an answer to:
"Should ResearchGate projects indicate if they are receiving financial funding, and any actual or potential conflicts of interest?"
+Icon: View Artur's answer clicking that link:
Artur's reply could not be found....
Artur: would you mind to inform about what happened? Thank you !
Wolfgang, that's really interesting. I cannot remember the details now, but Artur pointed to the existence of an arXiv preprint that was basically not submitted to a journal, but that was in essence "unpublished" work, and how such cases could, I assume, be cited in RG projects. I am also very surprised to see his comment just disappear! Did Artur change his mind?
Dear Jaime, then-after all- it was not a Fata Morgana to me...Thank you for explaining! We hopefully will be told wht happened...best regards, W.M.
Yes, they shoud include both the funding source/s and potential COIs!!!
Lygia, even more so when related to health and medicine. Despite this, I have seen no formal policy implemented, and I rarely see any projects list funding or COIs. Anyone who spots a project with a clear declaration of either or both, please list some examples.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Informality