I hope I can get some answers here on the use of the Research Interest Score, the h-index, and of the citation on this platform.

We do speak about three types of data. Research Interest Score may be manipulated. The number of citations differs from Google Scholar, while h-index also differs. Check your parameters and assure yourself...

"I think what’s important in any measure of scientific impact is that it is first based around the research artifact itself, i.e. the publication. Second, scientists should collect or aggregate impact from across all of their publications. Third, impact is captured based on pure interest in the work. This third part is what’s really new here. With the Research Interest Score, we’re considering reads from ResearchGate members, recommendations, and citations to form a more holistic measure of impact based on the interest that the scientific community is expressing over the lifecycle of a collection of works..."

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6973675045940252672/

Ljubomir Jacić Do you have any idea why the h-index and the citation of Research Gate differ from those of Google Scholar?

The h-index and the number of citations differs as RG does not import the data from GS.

There were many discussion about this issue here at RG. Links follow.

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

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

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

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

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

Ljubomir Jacić Thanks. I have read the sources. But would it not better if RG counted all citations of an author and calculate an h-index that is reliable? Everybody would then turn to RG and see it as a reliable source.

How does RG calculate it's h-index?

Quantifying impact in the scientific community

Ljubomir Jacić Dear Ljubomir, I have read the article of Ijad Madisch, the CEO-cofounder of RG, on LinkedIn, where he points to the three factors he thinks are important for measuring impact in the scientific community:

a. The publication itself

b. The aggregation of impact in the scientific community by the author and

c. The interest of the community in the work of the scientist.

And point three he considers a novel factor for measuring impact.

The question for me here is also quantity versus quality. When scientific journals or book publishers, publish your work, it has been assessed by peers who have knowledge on or of te subject. When you upload your work here on RG, not peer-reviewed, and other scientists on RG read and recommend it, they don't have to be experts in that particular field of your writing (subject). And so your impact can come from people not knowing enough about the subject.

And apart from that, there are other scientific platforms or communities then RG, where scientists can talk about your work and if RG doesn't or can't measure those impact, then the score of RG, the Research Interest (RI) is still partial, because it doesn't capture the whole picture of your impact on the scientific community.

Am I correct in my assumption?

And if that is the case, what will of can RG do about it?

You are right dear Rudi Darson . Try this source:

https://us18.campaign-archive.com/?u=b5c952fcc481e695a7e569b15&id=1b3441717a

DORA Reformscape is an online tool where you can explore examples of how to bring responsible assessment for hiring, promotion and tenure into your institution, and to share your approach with others.

It’s populated with policies, action plans and other documents such as principles from over a hundred institutions, from all over the world, together with expertly curated insights.

Reformscape is for anyone in the academic community looking for ideas and inspiration around how to implement responsible academic career assessment. It can be used no matter what stage of reform you're at - whether you're just beginning your journey or already have a path planned out, you’ll discover something new...

Ljubomir Jacić Dear Jacic, thanks for pointing to DORA Reformshape. I'll study it carefully and find out what you can do with it.

It is not a competitor of RG.

Dear Ljubomir Jacić The question now maybe should be: How to create impact through scientific research in the scientific community? What do you have to do to achieve that?

I think the viewpoint of the RG-CEO is valuable. Research, publish, distribute your research, and make sure that other researchers are are using your work.

And my additional advice would be, because there are different platforms, do it on different platforms, virtual and physical through articles, books, and conferences in the scientific community or communities.

And a platform like Dora, can be very useful, see

https://sfdora.org/2021/11/05/gathering-input-for-an-online-dashboard-highlighting-good-practices-in-research-assessment/

And then a comparison with the social community. Is having impact in the scientific community different from having impact in the social community at large. Which one is more important?

Does your impact in the scientific community transfer to impact in the general social community or in a specific professional community?

An opinion about h-index

"Starting one or two decades ago, scientists decided that we need to be able to measure each other’s success — you know, what sets a good scientist apart from a bad scientist? And we came up with some measures, like the h-index, which is a relative measure of how many citations your recent papers have gotten.

So a high number means you have a lot of papers that are getting a lot of citations. A low h-index means you’re not writing a lot of papers and/or they’re not getting a lot of citation. So therefore, according to this logic, someone with a high h-index is a better scientist; they are more likely to get into graduate school, to get research positions, to get faculty appointments, to get tenure, to get grants, to get promotion. A lot of this scientific career advancement is tied to this number, this metric.

What we have done is, by focusing so much on a metric like this — a single number, or a single set of numbers — we are incentivizing getting that number as high as possible. And when you incentivize getting your h-index as high as possible, that means publishing as much as possible. And publishing what you believe to be really giant, impactful research, game-changing research. So that makes you more inclined to, say, stretch your results beyond what the evidence can really support.

And we’re all doing it. We’re not really safeguarding — we’re not actually generating good [science] or good scientists, we’re just generating scientists who have high scores..."

https://undark.org/2024/03/08/interview-paul-sutter-science-trust/