The algorithm that is used to calculate the RG score, whatever it might be, should be made public.

Openness will lead to greater understanding and acceptance by the RG community.

Dear Michael John McAleer:

I agree with your response about making public the algorithm for the RG score.

It might be worth noting the following serious issue relating to the RG score:

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

The following thread might be of interest as it is related to this Question:

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

The following Question should be added to the list, especially as it might well have been the first to invite discussion about the meaning of the RG score:

2013

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

The following thread might be of interest as it is related to this Question:

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

Many academics in medical-related research, where team research is standard, have TRI >> 50,000, with the highest I have seen being 122,521, with Citations = 243,462 and RG score = 56.37.

As academic researchers in medical-related disciplines tend not to engage in Q&A, their RG scores seldom exceed 60.

It is worth reflecting on why so many academics seem to emphasize the RG score when the most prolific researchers have relatively low RG scores.

I enjoy the endless discussions in Q&A, where everyone seems to have an opinion.

This should be encouraged as most Questions are open ended and do not have uniquely correct Answers.

In connection with the RG score, as of 26 May 2019 I have compiled a list of 126 academics with RG score > 100.

I do not pretend to have a comprehensive list, but I am able to provide some data to support sensible empirical discussion about the RG score, whether you care about the RG score or not.

In my list, the highest RG score = 965.45, with h-index = 27.

Of the 126 academics, 32 have h-indexes in the range [0, 10).

Two academics have h-index = 0, and four have h-index = 1.

The remaining 94 academics have an h-index in the range [10, 91], with more than one-half of 94 having h-index > 25.

This is not achieved through endless Q&A, contrary to what has been repeated in various threads relating to the RG score, but through serious academic research over an extended period.

The following thread might be useful to anyone (still) asking about the RG score: https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_Childs_Guide_to_Calculating_the_RG_Score

This interesting related thread makes it clear that, in the absence of collusion, there is one thing that an academic cannot control, namely all the other academics who might interact with our published articles, unpublished research, projects, Reads, Recommendations, and Q&A.

Therefore, for those who might be interested in increasing their RG scores, for reasons that escape me, there is no guarantee that the RG score will change in the desired direction.

There have been many detailed and carefully considered Answers to this Question regarding the RG score, which is related to a number of interesting threads regarding the calculation, meaning, interpretation, and usefulness, among others, of the RG score.

The RG score is a computer-generated empirical weighted sum of all activities and interactions on RG, excepting Citations and the h-index.

It seems that the RG score depends heavily on Reads and Recommendations which, in turn, is heavily affected by Q&A.

A very sincere and appreciative acknowledgement for having given very helpful and thoughtful Answers.

It might be worth explaining the items that affect the calculation of the RG score.

The presentation in RG is not entirely clear on the definitions of "published articles" and "unpublished research".

The description of the RG score is given at:

https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/RG+Score

"The RG Score measures scientific reputation based on how your work is received by your peers. We believe that researchers are the best judges of each other's work and that all a [sic] person's research, published or not, deserves credit."

The term "work" is not defined.

A "reasonable" definition of "work" would include, as you have suggested, books, edited monographs, and fully refereed and edited conference proceedings volumes, which would appear under "published articles".

Unpublished versions of books, edited monographs, and conference proceedings volumes would presumably appear under "unpublished research".

Dear Michael John McAleer:

Another issue related to attempts to increase the RG score is repeatedly using one-word Answers, such as "Following", for which an interesting one-word alternative response is "Accepting".

One makes as much or as little sense as the other.

It might be worth highlighting that an academic's RG score can change even if they do absolutely nothing for an entire week in terms of adding zero Q&A, Reads, Recommendations, published articles, and unpublished papers.

This is because the RG scores of all the other academics who interact with an academic's previous Q&A, Reads, Recommendations, published articles, and unpublished papers, during the week will affect your RG score.

The RG score is an interaction between an academic and every other academic who engages in exchange and interactions with all current and previous RG activities.

Dear Michael John McAleer:

Making the algorithm public would not provide any further information relative to the detailed and helpful explanations you have already provided.

The RG algorithm has been made public, but few academics seem to understand what a computer algorithm is and does.