Hi my dear Luisa ... I think that they should be included, since they are part of the interactions of the interested with the profile of the researcher ... if the publications of a researcher have been read, it is because some interest will have for those who review
Hi my dear Luisa ... I think that they should be included, since they are part of the interactions of the interested with the profile of the researcher ... if the publications of a researcher have been read, it is because some interest will have for those who review
The RG Score page (https://www.researchgate.net/publicprofile.RGScoreFAQ.html) explains as follows:
Interactions
Interactions form the basis of your RG Score. Not only does our algorithm look at how your peers receive and evaluate your contributions, it also looks at who these peers are. This means that the higher the scores of those who interact with your research, the more your own score will increase. Your published research is then factored in to reflect your current standing within the scientific community.
So, I think that "Reads" is already taken into consideration for calculating the RG score and that this is a good method to measure scientific reputation of researchers.
- I think it is better to be considered.
- It can show the potential of the authors for attracting the right audience.
- However, this metric is not enough to judge about the abilities of authors and importance of their papers. For example, Matlab code of PSO has many reads (views), but it is because of the search engines. That file is just a standard Matlab code that you can find over the internet. Therefore, that RG score cannot represent the research potentials of the author (just an uploader). That RG score cannot reflect the values of science and research anymore.
- I feel that there are also some bugs in calculating the views. It is not algorithmically clear that how does RG calculate its views.
- You cannot consider all reads as views and all views as reads.
- In some cases, I read a paper and I detect that it is a bad, weak, or insignificant contribution. However, RG consider it as a positive score.
- You can also upload a non-scientific work (presentations, basic codes, tutorials, love stories, ...), and it will be found by search engines many times. For those cases, the "reads" metric cannot reveal a meaningful scientific advantage. Regards
Hi,
In your question you asked if the READ "should" be included In RG score. As far as I know it is included in the researchers' score, but I am not sure that it should be included. The Science citation Index, for instance, includes the READS as part of the information on the indexed paper but does not include it in the calculations of the impact factor or the H-Index. The reason for this, I think, is that READS do not indicate actual use of the material read. The actual use could be seen in the citations to the paper.
@Luisa
Interaction starts with reading . It should be included in RG score.
Prof B.Rath
Well, why not? This is just one more imprecise indicator of paper's value. Therefore it should be treated with some caution since it often happens that readers are lured into further reading by articles' attractive headline ("sexy"), or by its graphical abstract.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Applied Mathematics
- Calculations