Hi,

Is there an acronym for this measure ?I did not encounter one.

Avishag Gordon, it's the new metric that appears on your profile.

I haven't seen it too.

Ryan Michael Flores Oducado and Marwah Firas Abdullah Al-Rawe

Daniel, can you take a screen capture and upload it under the question? Still no RI here.

Research interest metric has been added as an indicator reflecting RG members' interactions with research related questions posed by other members. The only thing is that such algorithmic mechanisms and metrics require more time on researchgate and signal more active participation.

Where is it? I can not see.

Damien Villers, it should be on your profile page.

Daniel Goldman I think it is a wonderful score. The RG was kind of somehow misleading. The new score is based on only publications, citations and recommendation of publications. I am new in academia, but I strongly feel it will change the way people look at researchers profile.

I love the monthly & yearly statistics feature in it.

Thank you Daniel. Indeed it should be there, but it's not (I see citations, recommendations, reads, but no RI). What a mystery. Maybe RI is only for members with a high RG score... or it is implemented progressively and randomly.

Damien Villers, are you on the right page? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Damien_Villers

I can see your score.

Hi,

How research interest is calculated ? What are the the formula elements ?

Hi,

I think Researchgate metric is a bit unique and the algorithm is updated from time to time. I guess the research interest is calculated based on how wide your publications fit into different research interests.

Hi,

I think Research gate metric is a bit unique and the algorithm is updated from time to time. I guess the research interest is calculated based on how wide your publications fit into different research interests.

Here is my point of view:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Research_Interest-What_do_you_think_about_new_parameter_on_Researchgate

regards,

G

I think it is a good additional indicator for characterization of the scientist.

Could you expand on this idea, Grzegorz Boczkaj? What makes it a good indicator rather than a superfluous?

I'll think more about the second one, but in the first image, does full text reads include full text reads by non RG members? Dunno. It does seem weird.

Any updated thoughts on research interest, now that it's been out for a while?

Aseel O Ajlouni

At the same time, it's somewhat connected to your network. The bigger network you have gathered, the more it will be read.

TRI depends heavily on Citations, with a weight of over 50%, as well as Recommendations of Publications, and Reads by RG members.

TRI differs dramatically from the RG score, which is weighted heavily by arbitrary breakdown weights on Q&A.

TRI is a valid measure of scientific performance as it depends directly on Citations, unlike the RG score.

Hi,

The RG score on interest is a web score on the amount of a types of usage, browsing, notifying, reading, downloading etc' . In short, a measure of interest that does not measure up to the Impact Factor, or the CiteScore, but adds usage information to complete the picture.

Any solid evidence that promotion and tenure committees and/or grant reviewers are using these metrics in their deliberations? If that evidence develops, I think it might make RG members work harder on their profiles and network building activities

Lucia Nappi @Craig Nichols

Hi,

Research interest is one type of scientific information usage, but it cannot be considered for academic promotion, because it is not a "final metric", that is, it does not end, necessarily, in citing the source, and it is equivalent mostly to browsing the library shelves with no special purpose in mind.

There is much confusion in several posts on this thread in a failure to distinguish between Total Research Interest (TRI) and the RG score.

TRI depends heavily on Citations, which are a widely-used measure of impact, influence, importance, significance and/or quality of research publications.

The RG score depends primarily on Publications and Q&A, but not directly on Citations, so it does not measure scientific contributions.

Hi,

I believe that "research interest" metric is equivalent to browsing a library in a specific surrounding that interest the reader most, without actually choosing any book.

Michael John McAleer I could be wrong, but I believe when this question was originally asked, there was only one score. It's been so long though that I have forgotten.

To Daniel Goldman :

I do not know when TRI was first posted on RG, but there seems to be far greater interest in the RG score, which no one seems to understand, primarily because the RG Team will not provide appropriate information, than in TRI.

Hi,

The TRI seems to be a relatively new usage score. It combines several altmetrics results to one score of interest.

With the passage of time, many things has been changed in RG.

Research Interest has useful breakdowns in terms of Citations, and Reads by RG members that are separated into Full-text reads and Other reads, which is far more informative than the unscientific RG score.

Research Interest shows a score only based on your research papers and academic activity. It is a really good feature to recognize the good researchers, way better than the RG score in my opinion.

Research Interest based on research papers citations, recommendations, full-text reads, and other reads by RG members.

TRI is a valid measure of scientific contribution, quality, impact, importance, and significance as it depends directly on Citations. whereas the RG sore does not.

TRI is a scientifically-based measure.

Hi,

One evident characteristics of the TRI is that it fluctuate many times on a short while.

Dear Chia-Lin Chang and Michael John McAleer,

TRI is NOT a valid measure of scientific contribution, quality, impact, importance, and significance, because it DOES NOT DEPEND only on Citations, but…

Best regards,

R.

Incorrrect.

As TRI does depend heavily on Citations, it is a valid scientific measure.

Please check the definition of "valid".

Any metric that depends directly on Citations is worth considering seriously.

Dear Michael John McAleer, I agree with you, but why in TRI Reads are calculated only for RG members?

The simple linear formula to calculate TRI is defined by the RG Team, and is the same for every academic on the RG platform so that it can be reproduced.

Why are grades attached to Research Interests? What is/are the significance of Research Interest grades like 1.5 or other? What do these grades mean?

To Marko Ćećez :

The reason is to focus attention on members who participate on the RG platform.

After I have done many searches to find the solution to this issue, I find the following three major influential factors:

• The RG Score measures scientific reputation based on how your work is compared with your peers.
• You will not lose your activities such as citations, numbers of questions or solutions, numbers of different reads.
• The activities of the other participants will be increased day by day and you will be compared by the total number of these contributions.

Based on the aforementioned points, the RG Score is relatively measured in comparison with other researchers. It is a relative rating of your contributions in comparison with the others. You will not lose the number of reads, recommendations, answers, questions, etc. But, the other researchers also keep working.

In other words, your score is like a SharePoint from the total number of contributions that may go down relative to the others.

Hence, if you don't make new contributions your RG score will be decreased day by day.

From my point of view, ResearchGate (RG) is the best attractive academic social networking portal for the scientific community. In practice, RG is one of the biggest social media networks for the scientific community. It is a platform and a gateway for sharing information and experiences between scientists, experts, researchers, and practitioners. Hence, I am grateful to the network opportunities offered by RG for having this access to a broad range of researchers, papers, projects, questions, and discussion threads that otherwise I can't find. In a nutshell, ResearchGate (RG) is a kind of social media with a strong academics/research emphasis.

But, let me point to the following issue. Recommend, Follow, Download an article is just social interaction. Despite it helps to increase the RG scores, it reflects neither the work quality nor the researcher's position. This score depends on the institution where you work; this score in the institution where I work hasn't any remote feedback.

I know that the more you participate in various research activities, the more your research interest increases. Nevertheless, as we are researchers, the RG total research of interest shouldn't be our main goal in itself. We should do our job honestly, such as writing valuable articles, participate in the useful discussions that we are really interested in. If we don't bother with this metric, we will see that it will increase.

If we make this metric our goal, it will astray us and then we will jump over some fences to increase our metrics without real internal improvement.

Whatever the RG team will do, RG scores have little chance to become standards for our evaluations.

For me when they introduced significantly more weight for citations -which means more reliability of the RI score on a number more linked to the scientific interest of our productions, the RG team wanted to keep in their audience many researchers who are not using RG as a social media.

I do not know if it worked.

May be one day we can get the data about this...

Anyway, even if you are not interested in the RG score -which is highly understandable- RG allows sharing papers, data and informations about our work, our projects, and this is a great point

Am yet to understand the significance of the RG Research Interest grade

RI score calculation is given in the information page linked to the RI score page

• A read* has a weighting of 0.05.
• A full-text read* has a weighting of 0.15.
• A recommendation has a weighting of 0.25.
• A citation has a weighting of 0.5.

Contrary to the RG score which is strongly linked to the activity of questions and answers and recommendations, RI score includes a stronger impact of the number of citations, which is probably in the intention of giving more attractivity for those interested by more scientific impact on the score.

Thanks Mr Gil Mahe. I now understand

As you can see this score is still heavily influenced by other parameters than citations. A "recommendation" counts as half a citation. Thus the activity of recommending quesitons and answers can put your RI score very high, even with a very low number of citations to your papers...

FYI - I just posted the discussion "My formula for a rough estimate of RG Research Index" (https://www.researchgate.net/post/My_formula_for_a_rough_estimate_of_RG_Research_Index).

Excellent mr Victor Torvich. Thank you

Thank you for the answer

You already asked this question in another thread, where you can see my answer

RG score or RI score are interesting metrics. At first we could say they are valid only within the environnement of the RG platform, as there is no obligation to be registered in RG for a researcher. Thus we could say that these score have objectively no extended value. But there are many researchers registered on the RG platform, so that we are frequently brought to compare values from one or another... even if this has no absolute value and is not used in personal assessments (as far as I know), it can bring some positive "qualitative" appreciation on our work and.or scientific visibility. At least, I personnaly present the activities I have on the RG platform from the relationships' side, as I manage 31 "projects" and have more than 3000 followers, with whom I can keep a strong link through the paltform.

Thanks again Nancy - Great topic. Clearly, the "interest value" of a paper depends on its relativity to "popular" subjects that have high potential for rewards, re: compliance with normative support for status quo support for the current SM paradigm of science & technocracy/kleptocracy.