A small overview of the profiles of registered RG scientists indicates that for the same values of the parameters (Research Interest, Citations, Recommendations, Reads ) the scientists have a different value for the RG Score. Scientists who were earlier registered to RG for far lower values of these parameters have far higher RG Score, compared to scientists who are more recent on RG.
This misguided and confused Question makes an assertion without evidence.
What data, observations and overview are used to make assertions such as:
"A small overview of the profiles of registered RG scientists indicates that for the same values of the parameters (Research Interest, Citations, Recommendations, Reads ) ..."
The Question misses the point that the "values of the parameters" are NOT the same.
The RG score also depends on the RG scores of OTHER academics who are citing, reading and recommending an academic's publications and Q&A.
This is not available in the purported "values of the parameters".
It is a platform for science and scientists through which the researcher can view all the world's innovations in the field of scientific research does not make an effort sitting at home and through the interaction gets appreciation and the more interaction the higher the degree and thus be fair RG because the degree reflects the amount of interaction And its scientific and research activity
Respected dear Dr. Elizabeta,
I am not think but, I'm definitely believe that Research Gate is biased, biased, and biased in awarding RG score to registered Scientists!!!!!
Regards,
Naseer Almukhtar
Well, I began writing almost 7 years ago for one reason only and that is I feel good about myself while discussing so it really does not matter if they are scoring subjectively (at least for me)
My answer as question , Is RG score important for researchers?
I do not believe that Research Gate is biased to certain category of scientists. I find that every week if I interact with questions and discussions my scores increase.
One thing I believe that it is not a true way of validating a researcher.
I think RG is fair in her dealings with members and with the award of score. Sometimes it brings my mind to the students who are always with different opinion when their exam grade are released.
I OFTEN SAY IT THAT RG IS NOT SOLELY FOR RESEARCH INTEREST AND GROWTH. I HAVE SEEN A PROFILE WITHOUT A SINGLE ARTICLE BUT WITH OVER 400 RECOMMENDATIONS AND OVER 20,000 READS AND THE OWNER HAS A SURPRISINGLY GOOD RG SCORE. SO, TELL ME, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO CELEBRATE EVEN IF YOU'RE OFFERED A BIG SCORE?
The contribution of the RG in the light with their well many members of the highest academic hat should not be viewed in the line with negative forum . With the presentation their working system members can himself evaluated their standing , & as such we cannot view the contribution of RG in the negative side .
This is my personal opinion
Thank you for all your answers to my question. Each of your answers gives me satisfaction and I appreciate all the answers equally.
Respected,
I thank you to all of you for the time you devoted to this my question.
Dear friends. Thank you for your attention and your thoughts on the topic that I proposed to you.
I sincerely thank you for all your answers to my question. Dear, please excuse me that I can not recommend at least one , because I respect all equally.
Great gratitude for all your answers. I appreciate each other's opinions.
Respected, thank you for your answers. I hope that every answer will help us in building our attitude regarding the topic we are discussing.
Nobody is perfect, but the world is a better place with RG rather without it. You are right it may look unfair for some people, but they tell you what criteria they are using which are already very complicated. On top of that they have modified their criteria and they keep changing them to make it fairer. But it is not an easy task to please everyone. We should place more attention to communication with other scientists and learning rather than paying attention to the score, which is a bit meaningless.
Thank you for all your answers to the question. Really interesting considerations.
We're all scored by the same method,and in that respect the score is fair.
Is it open to manipulation.....I don't know,as I don't know anything about the algorithm by which the score is calculated.
I see that it's being tweaked regularly,so one would hope that the method is being improved and as it is,it does encourage you to interact with other researchers,and to post research openly,so again,that's a fair and reasonable result.
I am very pleased with your interest in my questions. Thank you sincerely and I wish you success in the work you are doing or planning to do.
Thanks to all who follow my question, and especially to those who are trying to answer the question. Believe me, your support is very important to me.
This misguided and confused Question makes an assertion without evidence.
What data, observations and overview are used to make assertions such as:
"A small overview of the profiles of registered RG scientists indicates that for the same values of the parameters (Research Interest, Citations, Recommendations, Reads ) ..."
The Question misses the point that the "values of the parameters" are NOT the same.
The RG score also depends on the RG scores of OTHER academics who are citing, reading and recommending an academic's publications and Q&A.
This is not available in the purported "values of the parameters".
Issues related to "fairness" and "bias" are frequently associated with subjective value judgments, which lead to opinions rather than carefully considered Answers.
Opinions do not lead to sensible and logical outcomes to important Questions.
A statement such as "small overview" demands a clarification as to how many "registered RG scientists" were considered.
Otherwise, the Question is unclear and incomplete.
How can anyone Answer such a Question?
Dear my followers, thank you for your attention and your spending time on this issue.
Gratitude for all answers to this question and for pay attention to me.
Personally, I do not care about RG score, but focusing on the total number of citations.
Thank you RG for your excellent facilities...
I believe that RG is earned and not awarded. Earning is related to work and efforts exerted by scientists which can be described as parameters such as number of citations, number of published literature, recommendations...etc.
What we can suggest is to use more smarter methods and algorithms to evaluate the content of the research and give weight accordingly (i.e. impact factor of the journal can play a role). But I still believe that this is very hard to achieve.
It is fair enough, I guess! Depending on how active you are though.
Fairness of system is based on explicit criteria and appropriate objectives set by the system owners by keeping in mind the essential elements of concepts behind the system. .Both of these are clear to most of the scientists and others with varying degree of understanding.one may disagree with the health of certain objectives but overall the RG is achieving its objectives successfully.
I do not care about the score, i am interesting how to get the benefit scientific information from researchers, that is my goal to improve my self.
RG score is fair but not perfect. Attention is paid to interactivity more than citations and publications
Hi
I say clearly thete is no bias..... Its truly based on fairness.....
Best
Arunprakash Vincent
Research gate was launched in 2008. It is a good social networking site for the scientists and researchers to share articles which are not otherwise available easily. The RG score does not matter to a large extend, what matters is the availability of scientific data. Any one can have access to the material of his interest which is not otherwise possible. As far as RG score is concerned, its significance is not of that impact.
Contrary to the previous statement, ResearchGate is a commercial venture, where the "business strategy is focused on highly targeted advertising based on analysis of the activities of users ..." :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchGate
To Nirmala S.V.S.G :
Do you have any evidence that there is bias in calculating the RG score?
For whom?
To Elizabeta Hristovska :
I am sure that everyone who has tried to Answer your Question would benefit from being told how many "registered RG scientists" you actually considered in the "small overview".
Do you have an actual number?
Thank you.
Thank you for the time you spent on me and my question. You know, you have caused my attention to you too. Greetings to all of you, my dear.
Respected Michael John McAleer , I'm glad that I caused your attention with this my question. It was my opinion and the opinion of my collaborators with whom I am everyday. We respect all the answers to this question, of course yours. All this will contribute to changing our thinking and building a definitive attitude. Greeting.
To Elizabeta Hristovska :
Thank you for the helpful clarification.
I take no issue with academics having opinions.
However, I have a serious issue about the basis of the Question regarding the "same values of the parameters", which is provably false.
I am sure that the Question will continue to be answered by many academics who will remain convinced that the RG score is biased, specifically against them.
Who needs hard evidence when you have an opinion?
Dear Michael
I completely agree with everything you wrote.
Greeting
To Elizabeta Hristovska :
I am pleased that we have converged to a mutual and polite understanding.
Not knowing the exact algorithm with which RG awards scores and points, it is difficult to make a generalized conclusion about bias or absence of bias. Many factors seem to influence the RG score and TRI including number of reads, recommendations, publications and their IFs, questions and answers, general participation in terms of time spent in RG, citations, how your contributions stand relative to other peer groups such as your department (and maybe your university), etc. Not knowing the influence of these variables it is futile to comment on if the system is fair or not.
To Srini Vasan:
Citations do not affect the RG score.
Citations affect TRI.
The following thread might help to understand the RG score:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_Childs_Guide_to_Calculating_the_RG_Score
I really thank you for your explanation, dear Michael John McAleer. I think this will also benefit other researchers.
To Elizabeta Hristovska :
You are too kind.
Your interesting Questions frequently benefit the RG community through Q&A.
I don't think there is bias, but the scoring system is not known in detail. As a result, RG is a motivating platform where our events are scored and evaluated.
How to say biasing ,we do not know the calculation formula of score.
To Ilhami Unluoglu :
If you read the related thread, you will see that the RG score is explained in detail.
The scoring system is, in fact, known.
To Fares F. Fares:
If you read the related thread, you will see that the RG score is explained in detail.
There is no "calculation formula" as the RG score is a computer-generated empirical weighted sum of an academic's activities on RG.
To Stephen I. Ternyik :
Playing and enjoying the game is excellent and sage advice.
There are lots of arguments regarding RG score.
Some are saying score is useless (but I feel it is nice, encourage to engage in conversations at the beginning, and then get to know many researchers).
If you have time please see this as well. in this thread also there are some criticisms.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_ask_a_good_question_in_RG_and_get_many_responses
Dear followers of my questions, I would like to thank you today for the spent time and the expressed opinion on above mentioned question.
RG following definitely some guide lines and parameters accordingly score generated, now a days research interest new feature is introduced
Thank you for the answers. Some of your answers confirm my thinking on the issue, but some make me think if I am right.
Really, very interesting answers. I thank you all. I will not make an injection with any of you, because everyone has an opinion that I really respect.
Thank you dear, for your attention and for your consideration regarding my question.
I am glad that I kept your attention with this my question. I thank you all. I respect each other's opinions.
Great gratitude to all my RG friends who are supporters of my questions and my other engagement on this web portal.
RG does not award degrees or academic honors. Their score is to do with participation in their activities which have to do with interaction with others NOT with excellence in your field of expertise.
My dear followers, you again gave me pleasure by paying attention to this question.
I think there was an obscure ranking approach in RG that may seems as non-logical, however your question is so vital that I noted many scientist attention were directed to scoring rather than knowledge..
Thanks a lot
As the topic seems to be of interest, 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", which surprisingly are not available on the RG website: .
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 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".
It is a pleasure to see that you have kept someone's attention. Thank you for the answers. Greetings to all of you.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking