Dear Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich If RG attaches some weightage (in the calculation of total RG score) to what you have suggested, you will find surprising response!

Regards,

Arbind

Dear Arbind K. Choudhary

Thanks for your reply. I read information about this question on the RG support site. If the bibliographic list is recognized by the RG system and is not linked to the articles of the cited authors. I tend to think that this is done on purpose. Otherwise, with our quotes, we will bring down the system of calculating our RG Score.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Thanks, Sergey, for the invitation to the discussion, but I will not contribute very much. RG - like any other sources of information about (not only) citations - selects them according to its own whims and so they are inherently strongly biased (deficient)! This procedure starts already when you upload your paper on RG: you are asked to name - among others - the journal, but you can only select from among the pre-compiled list; if your journal is not on the list (and the majority are not), you cannot normally fill the respective box, what probably influences also the later inclusion of the paper in the list of citations. For me, no much problem: I know anyway that lists of citations - like Impact Factors, h-indices e tutti quanti - are no more than a large humbug designed as one more device of efficient censorship...

Following to see more relevant informative comments

DearRoman Bohdan Hołyński

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Dear Lamia Al-Naama

Thanks for your reply.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

What is the real reason. Maybe it's in the programs for creating a pdf file. If so, what solutions can be proposed. We will not take into account when pdf is not recognized on the text. Created as a graphic file. Or it's all about the quotation recognition system on the RG website.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Agree with members views

RG appears not to detect all the citations same time, but with time, RG captures some unreported citations

There are many mysteries in RG. This is one of them

DearChinaza Godswill Awuchi

Thanks for your reply. Indeed, citation appear from time to time in articles 10-15 years ago.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Like RG google scholar also unable to detect all citations

Thank you all for participating in the discussion.

All the same, I want to understand a few points.

Is there a dependence of the recognition of quotes on how the pdf file was created. There are requirements for this file. For example, what character and font encodings are better to use, etc. Either all this is not important, but the main reason is in the technical capabilities of the RG website.

Recently, we got the opportunity from the RG website to go to the page of the cited article by moving the mouse cursor over the source of literature when viewing the articles by going to the reference section.

I had an idea maybe we can use this tool to tie quotes to literature sources.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Dear Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich ,

Indeed, one of the problems is that the RG search engine (or some kind of software that recognize the references) is unable to read certain files. Indeed, a pdf file that is not (text) searchable will not render hits. Furthermore, certain alphabet styles (like Cyrillic script) are hard and sometimes poorly analysed by RG.

There is a great tool/tip by Andrey E. Krauklis that at least can repair this for your own papers:

Method Method for Improving Recognition of Citations & References o...

The only personal tip I can add: include (as much as possible) the DOI.

Best regards.

PS. Unfortunately (and of course) you can not ‘correct’ papers that do not belong to you but at least all papers of your own suffering this problem can be ‘fixed’. If more RG member do this then this part of the citation problem can become less prominent.

Dear Rob Keller

Thank you for your valuable advice. This is indeed a very important addition to my understanding of problem solving.

Yours sincerely,Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Even the RG scholar citations didn't detect many citations might be due to problems in recognition of files

Dear Dhiraj Kumar

Thank you for your opinion.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Super interesting what is explained by Rob Keller.

I guess this is a problem google scholar does not have!

Research Gate speaks more of scientific & technical data & quite good member are interested more on submitting their project . It is in this line the information may be more of scientific nature & cited literature may not have a considerable place .

This is my personal opinion

Following! Interesting discussion.

السبب الرئيسي هو انتشار الادب اكثر من باقي المنشورات ولكون الادب يكون قريبا الى المواطنين الفقراء في اغلب الاحيان

Dear Rohit Manilal Parikh Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak حسين كريم كلية التربية الاساسية

Thanks for your participation in the discussion.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Directing colleagues to reconsider some of the sources and weak research and exchange them for more sober sources and research.

Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

A topic worth discussing, thank you for raising it.

So true indeed. Citations in Google scholar is much higher than RG.

Perhaps you can try a method described by Andrey E. Krauklis in his post:

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

Dear Anton Vrdoljak

Thanks for your answer, it helped me a lot.

Regards, Sergey

You're welcome Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich, and thanks for recommendation!

Interested

There is no reason. It should be recognized.

I think tracking system is not trace all journal publications

Because researchers rely on research sources from which they extract work methods and not search in research platforms such as the RG platform.

Dear Ebrahim E. Elsayed

Silvia Marcu

M.K. Tripathi

Thanks for your participation in the discussion!

Regards, Sergey

Thanks to all

Dear Dr. Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich , the software programmes are unique - every one comes with its own share of advantages and limitations. But, you have spotted an important issue. Need more introspection on right & efficient measure. Warm regards Yoganandan

It is not same as the Google scholar.

Dear P. Contreras Yoganandan G. Safaa K. Kadhem

Thank you for your participation in the discussion. Your opinion is very valuable to me.

Regards, Sergey

I believe Anton Vrodoljak is right about the method described by Andrey E. Krauklis

I have 2 articles on ResearchGate that cite each other and still the ResearchGate system is not able to recognize the citations.

RG should work on improving its citation tracking system. Arxiv and google shcolar do an excellent job at tracking citations. So there is no reason RG would be able to do the same.

Despite the bad citations tracking, RG has a lot of advantages such as the metrics (number of reads, number of recommendations) and the ability to follow people and to comment on people’s work something that is not available neither on arxiv nor on google scholar. RG really helps you see how people are interacting with your articles as well as to get feedback and improve your work. It also provides the ability to discuss with other researchers and ask questions and get answers as we are doing now.