Dear Valentina.

Everything is very simple.

Impact Factor is only for journals with indexation by THOMSON REUTERS.

For the rest journals impact factor is gradually removed.

Furthermore. Impact factor influences the total score in the RG.

Therefore, if the impact factor decreases, then it decreases, and the total score in the RG.

I also noticed the same thing. It was around 74. Now it is 5.99. I could not explain this rate of fall..

Dear Valentina.

Everything is very simple.

Impact Factor is only for journals with indexation by THOMSON REUTERS.

For the rest journals impact factor is gradually removed.

Furthermore. Impact factor influences the total score in the RG.

Therefore, if the impact factor decreases, then it decreases, and the total score in the RG.

Valentina,

Your impact on me has increased a lot since I met you

Dear Vjacheslav,  this is a logical explanation. But I have publication impact factor in Thomson and Reuters, which is also removed.

Dear Michael, I sincerely hope to be added the column reading of my impact on you. Then I will be far ahead in the ranks.

Dear Valentina,

The same happen with me!

May be some thing wrong.

Regards

Dear Valentina,

Dear All,

IF value at RG profiles was only an approximate value not an exact one. I think RG maintainers might have found a better algorithm or a good resource for the data to follow or correct.

I think that probably the RG-IF follows the time evolution of IF for all relevant formal journals (ie indexed) where we have published. My IF was 1.75 and now is 1.46, probably the journal's IF has fallen...

Should I worry about?

I think no...

 Dear Valentina,

Mine has not been changed. Last time i checked it mateched with Thompson Reuters IF total.

I think the best way to check  is to calculate your Thompson  Reuters IF points yourself. You may alsi wish to contac RG support team ([email protected]).

Small changes are expected and possible immediately  after uodating IF by tompson house. However, it does seem to be the case here.

The explanation by dear @ viacheslav and a change in the algorithm (maybe bugs or mistakes ) are he most probable reasons.

Best regards.

Behrouz

Yes, RG jumps, but we can still talk. And that's fine :-))

I agree with the esteemed Josef.

Home communicate, dating, exchanged opinions, the consideration of new ideas.

Yes, the total impact factors for many Researchgate members have reduced.

They no longer represent the sum of the impact factors for all of the publications accredited to each individual. I've checked my own total and it has reduced by 24% relative to the sum of the impact factors accredited to each publication by Researchgate and Thompson Reuters.

Most impact factor totals have reduced, but looking across a range of individuals known to me I do not see a consistent pattern. It suggests that the algorithm applied by Researchgate has altered. My qualitative assessment is that the impact factor totals have decreased rather more for individuals that publish in social science journals - but its not consistent. I'm guessing that there could be a weighting factor added according to the journal. Secondly, I note a tendency for early career or less experienced researchers to be affected more greatly. I think that could be due to a weighting introduced for authorship with reduced ratings for 2nd, 3rd, 4th  authors and so on. I find its most instructive to examine "before" and "after" totals for individuals that have few publications as that can better expose the working of the algorithm.

If I am correct, then individuals publishing in science journals, especially those that publish frequently as first authors should see least reduction in impact factor totals. Unfortunately, since Researchgate do not normally discuss the finer details of algorithms it will be difficult either to confirm my ideas are correct, or indeed to assess whether the alteration results in a more effective impact indicator

It would be interesting learn what others think.

Dear Valentina, so many researchers are very concerned about impact factor.  That's why it affects our whole community, although we know deep down that IF applies more to journals than to researchers, yet it still affects us.  Let's not worry too much, our citations are still the same, and that is the thing that is relevant.  Besides, RG is helpful to give visibility to our papers and for collaboration, indirectly and (possibly) helping us to get more citations. (Perhaps, from now, some of us will now only send to journals with Thomson Reuters IF.)

I agree. Let's enjoy our participation and exchange of ideas through Q/A. 

We all know that RG score does not help us directly in our career. We do not like to see our scores decrease, though!.

I very well understand dear Valentina's concern and curiousity. Scientists and RGers are curious by nature:).

Any news?. Did you email RG support, dear @ Valentina?

I feel RG evaluations  viz., RG score, impact point etc. does not measure  our capability as researchers. I don't think we can include them in our formal CV.. Let us consider RG as a social forum for the researchers. We can exchange our views. We can also discuss our academic problems with the experts.   Let us be satisfied with these facilities.

Dear All,

Why to be anxious about such a superficial and widely discussed score?

RG indicated always that IF scores at your profiles were only approximate values.

Agree with András Bozsik

Approximately down is not good for the eye health...

Dear all, let's not bother about the points. Thanks to RG that it got researchers from many regions of  the Globe on a same platform and I am happy that we exchange our opinions and minds here. Keep smiling :)

Andras, Sardar are expressing the right sentiment, as are some others.  Let's not bother too much about impact points.  I read a comment that it doesn't even mean that a journal that has IF of 3.5 is better than another with IF of 3.1.  Let's continue to read the ARTICLE, regardless of the journal that published it.  You can laugh at me, that I don't have IF points to lose.  (As long as I do not publish in journals blacklisted by my Education ministry, I am safe.  But my friends in university still dare to publish in them.)

http://rimc.uum.edu.my/index.php/en/publication/blacklisted-journals-by-moe

Dear All,

IF values have re-happened! Is it all right?

Again my Impact point has come back to its previous value, that is, 74.77. Possibly it was due to some problem in the software.

In another question thread one Researchgate member explained that she received a message from Researchgate attributing the altered impact factor (IF) totals to "technical issues" - see link below. That would fit with the recent restoration of IF totals.

My inquiring (suspicious) mind wonders however whether it was a "pure" technical issue, or whether we inadvertently had an unintended glimpse of a new algorithm being tested/refined by Researchgate?

IF clearly has some value as an indicator alongside others such as RG score, citations etc. However, it can be argued that the best indicators are usually the body of work published or created by an individual and the quality of their discourse. Fortunately, Researchgate facilitates very efficient dissemination  of both publications and discussion and serves as a valuable tool for all academics, researchers and scholars alike.

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

Dear Valentina,

RG impact factor=Total of your articles impact factors, so by decreasing in impact factors of the journals, your RG impact factor has fallen.

The Thompson Reuters (ISI) impact factor for each Journal changes each year, usually not by very much. I don't know how quickly Research Gate accommodates this. From a personal point of view, it is probably better to look at the total number of citations your work has received. I am not sure how to get this figure directly, but ResearchGate tells me mine from time to time when it has passed thresholds. Of course this must be based only on the data they can get.

We all know that the system is crazy, and that Journals (even, or perhaps specially, the top ones) play games to increase their impact factor. We would be much better off (morally) if judgments were made on the quality and usefulness of each paper, over the longer term and not just two years worth. But of course, our bureaucratic masters would then have to do more work, and would have to depend on the advice of experts in the field. Gosh, they might even have to read some science! As it is, they have a nice easy system that allows them to make judgments on the basis of simple addition.

Dear Prof Cameron and all, those bureaucrats should certainly read some science to understand why we are passionate about our research.  Who knows, they may get infected by our enthusiasm and learn to follow our trends of thought.  And the science they read may affect their decisions concerning education of their children, and allow them to make good decisions about their lifestyles and how it affects the sustainability of our earth.  They would if they read my recent paper on motivation.

Dear Valentina, dear all, have a look at this one.  Is it TR journal?  Then why does it have IF, given that only TR journals really have impact factors?  We must ask, because we must learn...

https://www.researchgate.net/journal/2278-179X

Miranda,

 It looks suspicious to me. I have (or will try) to send it to Beall. I suspect that the impact factor is not the TR one. I think the great width of subjects within a single journal is also odd

Hi, Miranda,

 Beall has replied very quickly. This Journal is on his list

Robert

I don't count RG as I have noticed that my citations and readability are not counted in RG values. I have also noticed that half of my citations and readabilty are having higher RG than me. I verified the impact factor of journals and found still those half citations are having less IF points than ne. I wonder where I did wrong ☺☺