Yes, in my humble opinion. Firstly because scientists have an interest in disseminating their intellectual work through an interactive, secure and free medium. Secondly, traditional journals use the same pool of academics as referees to review submitted articles. And thirdly, It allows for post publication peer review.
No way. There is no such thing as a "ResearchGate peer reviewer" as not one of us is an _external_ expert. In fact, we are all insiders. Post-publication peer review is a good idea, but can be gamed too easily in a digital environment.
Yes, in my humble opinion. Firstly because scientists have an interest in disseminating their intellectual work through an interactive, secure and free medium. Secondly, traditional journals use the same pool of academics as referees to review submitted articles. And thirdly, It allows for post publication peer review.
No way. There is no such thing as a "ResearchGate peer reviewer" as not one of us is an _external_ expert. In fact, we are all insiders. Post-publication peer review is a good idea, but can be gamed too easily in a digital environment.
I agree with Janos, the works published in Research Gate cannot be considered as scholarly articles. There is not a real process to peer review this works and, anyway, when you don't have a limited number of acceptable papers (like in conferences or jorunals) it's way too easy to consider a work "acceptable".
Here is a simple question that might help you answer this question:
Can your publication help future researchers and be of use to them in their research and work?
If the answer is yes, then making your publication "public" is good enough. Making it public in a place where other researchers will be more likely to find it (and more easily) than it is even better.
Research gate is as good a place as any other to publish it, because it is one of the places where people will search for past research done on some topic which they can review and study.
RG publications may be peer-reviewed in future- in my opinion a multi-discilpinary journal can be launched or 4-5 journals separately by RG officials and selected researchers worldwide on RG and in coming 5-6 years it can have its IF too
The problem is there is no any involvement of external expert. So my answer is simply No.
It should be considered scholarly if the RG publication brings out novel conclusions based on the authors prior publications (see attachment) along the same line of investigation in various reputed journals. I have included a list of experts in the field of ion-pumps, Ca-signaling and allosteric regulation who has been invited to openly discuss the problem so that the truth can come out. Currently, I have an important paper on Cytosolic regulation of Na-pump by a 170 k Da. regulatory protein, in open access F1000 that has been waiting for peer review for nearly a year; though numerous reviewers have been requested but no response so far. The papers, just mentioned (based on solid data), suffered recent rejections from "classic"-publication venues where I published earlier without any problem.
No. Simply because no reviewers are evaluating RG publications and no editor is coordinating the reviews of an RG publication.
RG is not a publisher, it is a web site. Uploading material to RG is not "publishing," it is "posting," like posting a notice on a bulletin board. To be a legitimate publishing web site there must be in place a qualified editorial and review staff. With some modification RG has the potential to become a "pre-publication" sounding board or a "publication preparation conduit." This would be a useful service to both writers and publishers. Allowing anyone, qualified or not, to write a review of RG "postings" is not professionally adequate; RG would have to limit reviews to those with the necessary expertise.
I agree that RG is a social media site, but it has a preprint which is increasingly being used by researchers.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Scientific Research