Dear Robert Logozar

I am pleased to have at least 2 or 3 researchers who are perplexed by the way RG evaluates and rates scientific contributions and quality of publications under an Impact Factor, number of readers, number of followers and research questions coordinating a network of discussion.

I agree with you in your reflections and questions that you make to yourself without finding for the moment a clear answer to your internal questions. The same thing happened to me. As I also do not find answers to my own questions, I have thought that this is a new way of evaluating using another indicator, which probably has not been validated in its entirety.

I also do not know and I have no answer regarding What happened to quote the Thompson Reuters Science Citation Index (SCI) at the door of the investigation? Why do you withdraw?

I have read the publication of Kjetil K. Haugen, to which I made the following comment regarding the results and conclusions of his research when comparing RG vs Academia.edu

• Luckily browsing his profile, I found this article that caught my attention, the comparison between Research Gate and Academia.edu.I am more RG user than Academia.edu, although I find relevant publications on both pages.I have the impression that the way To qualify publication quality, quotes and readers, is done differently. Definitely RG is more interactive, but I'm not sure that it values and appropriately qualifies the contributions, experiences and development of researchers. The scores for English publications and well-known research groups are generally higher.regardsJose Luis

Estimado Robert Logozar

Me congratulo de tener al menos 2 o 3 investigadores que están perplejos por la forma como RG evalua y califica contribuciones científicas y calidad de las publicaciones en virtud de un Factor de Impacto, número de lectores, número de seguidores y preguntas de investigación coordinando una red de discusión.

Estoy de acuerdo con usted en sus reflexiones y preguntas que se hace a si mismo sin encontrar de momento respuesta clara a sus cuestionamientos internos. Lo mismo me ha pasado a mi. Como yo tampoco encuentro respuesta a mis propias preguntas, he pensado en que se trata de una nueva forma de evaluar utilizando otro indicador, el cual probablemente no se ha validado en su totalidad.

Tampoco se y no tengo respuesta respecto a ¿Qué le pasó a citar el Índice de Thompson Reuters Science Citation (SCI) en la puerta de la investigación? ¿Por qué se retira?

He leído la publicación de Kjetil K. Haugen, al cual le hice el siguiente comentario en relación a los resultados y conclusiones de su investigación cuando compara RG vs Academia.edu

• Luckily browsing his profile, I found this article that caught my attention, the comparison between Research Gate and Academia.edu.I am more RG user than Academia.edu, although I find relevant publications on both pages.I have the impression that the way to qualify publication quality, quotes and readers, is done differently.Definitely RG is more interactive, but I'm not sure that it values and appropriately qualifies the contributions, experiences and development of researchers. The scores for English publications and patented papers from well-known research groups are generally higher.regardsJose Luis

In the same sense of the discussion, I also wondered if there is any better way or another Indicator, to evaluate the quality of the publications, truly considering the content and depth.

In this respect I comment as follows, also on the subject of the publication of Kjetil K. Haugen

• As I thought it important to publish the quality of biomedical scientific publications, I recommend their work in a publication network where I question whether the Impact Factor is the best indicator to evaluate the quality of publications.In the following link, you will find the network Of discussion and argumentation about this Impact Factor.

Regards

Jose Luis

Https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Impact_Factor_best_indicator_to_assess_the_quality_of_Biomedical_Publications

En el mismo sentido de la discusión, también me he preguntado si existe alguna forma mejor u otro Indicador, para evaluar la calidad de las publicaciones, considerando verdaderamente con criterio y a profundidad el contenido.

Al respecto comento lo siguiente, también a propósito de la publicación de  Kjetil K. Haugen

• As I thought it important to publish the quality of biomedical scientific publications, I recommend their work in a publication network where I question whether the Impact Factor is the best indicator to evaluate the quality of publications.In the following link, you will find the network of discussion and argumentation about this Impact Factor.

regards

Jose Luis

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

I was very pleasantly surprised by a prompt answer to my question given by the RG Community Support. The surprise was even greater knowing that I didn’t send any direct question to them. So, it’s very nice to know that they track the topics like this one. I’m less pleased with their strict answer, but feel obligated to post it here:

“Dear Robert,

Thanks for getting in touch. We no longer display journal metrics, like the impact factor, as they don't provide a reliable indication of the quality of any individual article or researcher published in the journal. Instead, we show your H-index and RG score - which take your individual contributions into account. We are also looking into improving these publication and author-level metrics in order to better represent exactly how influential your research is.

Kind regards,

Thomas

RG Community Support

Have any more questions? Check out ResearchGate's Help Center: https://explore.researchgate.net/?utm_source=template&utm_campaign=templates ”

I am glad that there are people who try think on their own regarding this matter and who spread a dash of democracy on this site. To be true, there are many of them discussing this same topic in their answer to a plethora of the much more popular questions than this one. So thank you, Jose, your contribution is great. You seem to know so much more about the SCI than I do,  and I could agree that there are many things that this index either overemphasize or misses to count.

In fact, my final resignation in the notes after the questions was a very consequence of that fact, and as Kjetil pointed out, of the general observation that measuring scientific relevance and contribution is really, really hard, especially quantitatively. And still, the people in RG decided that their newly invented impact index was much better than the old one!? So, that was my point. But to be practical, OK, let them have their new impact factor, but why not showing in parallel the old one. Perhaps also some others, too. Why not a little table of all today prevailing indices, which would allow for their mutual critical comparison? (I bet there were dozens and dozens of Ph.D. theses made on this topic in several fields of social sciences). In this way, the people could decide which index they really like, and even consider more of them, each for a different purpose. It is clear that this could be easily done, and─-if the scientific metrics is a sine qua non of modern times─-its variety would be improved, and the frustration of the RF members would be alleviated. 

Also, the relevance of each of these indices could be affirmed by inspecting them for the crucial and leading scientists of each field (these are more or less well known, and could be as well picked by each member individually). On the other hand, the same indices could be inspected for the RG members for whom one may suspect that their scores are pumped in unethical or simply irrelevant ways. Kjetil nicely described the former. Another, perfectly ethical in a broader and perhaps popular sense, but scientifically completely irrelevant (at least if science is what I think it is), is writing the notes like this one. So I apologize about that in advance, hoping that the (modest) contribution to this site would be at least slightly greater than the benefit I might have from it in rising of my RG score.

Thanks for reading this,

Robert

Another prompt answer by the RG Community Support:

"Dear Robert,

Thanks for getting in touch. The aim of the RG Score is to help you measure and leverage your standing within the scientific community. We want to provide you with a metric that is calculated based on how all your research is received by your peers, not just the work you've published.

 Some of your concerns are valid, however, at this stage, we are unable to share information on the RG score calculation. This, however, might change in the future. We are already in the planning phase of working on an approved version of the RG score. As we continue to improve our reputation indicators on Researchgate, we are considering transparency, reliability and simplicity. To illustrate this, we have included established measures for reputation (h-index and citations) alongside simpler transparent measures (RG reach). We believe these supplement the RG score to provide a complete picture of the researcher’s reputation.

It is our intention to continually improve in this area and we will consider your feedback towards this.

Concerning the h-index, we use the same calculation method as the standard, which is described here: https://www.wur.nl/en/article/How-do-I-calculate-my-hindex.htm

Kind regards,

Thomas

RG Community Support

Have any more questions? Check out ResearchGate's Help Center: https://explore.researchgate.net/?utm_source=template&utm_campaign=templates "

Dear Robert Logozar

I am pleased that there is this small democracy gap in RG.

It seems to me that they make a great effort with their tools of AI, and the indicator h and citations to evaluate the quality of the publications; Although it is a great approach, is still not enough.

I believe that human intelligence and its creativity are better at evaluating (through experts, peers) the originality of research and its impact; Both in the scientific community and in the general population, in the form of: Publications in renowned journals, scientific dissemination works, patents, creation and innovation of technology and application to improve the quality of life of society.

Personally and putting a closer example that I can analyze for having all the information available, that is, my works, my scientific production, I do not understand how to migrate up and down my RG score,

I know that there is an AI program that automatically orders and incorporates all the information that is provided to it, but again I emphasize that regardless of the number of readers of my works, coordinated discussion networks (questions), contributions in projects and analysis-evaluation Of the work of experts in different fields of science that are related to my training, values and interests, I do not understand these numerical changes.

Also, I believe that from within RG, actively participating and with originality, as well as criteria and constructive criticism of the system, is how you will get an improvement in its operation and the final result.

regards

Jose Luis

Estimado Robert Logozar

Me agrada que exista esta pequeña brecha de democracia en RG.

Me parece que hacen un gran esfuerzo con sus herramientas de Inteligencia Artificial (IA), y el indicador h y citas para evaluar la calidad de las publicaciones; aunque es un gran acercamiento, todavía no es suficiente.

Creo que la inteligencia humana y su creatividad, son mejores para evaluar (mediante expertos, pares) la originalidad de los trabajos de investigación y su impacto; tanto en la comunidad científica, como en la población general, en forma de: Publicaciones en revistas indexadas de renombre, trabajos de divulgación científica, patentes, creación e innovación de tecnología y aplicación para mejorar la calidad de vida de la sociedad.

Personalmente y poniendo un ejemplo más cercano que puedo analizar por tener toda la información disponible, esto es, mis trabajos, mi producción científica, no entiendo como migra para arriba y para abajo mi puntuación de RG,

Se que existe un programa de IA que ordena e incorpora casi automáticamente toda la información que se le proporciona, pero nuevamente enfatizo que, independientemente del número de lectores de mis trabajos, redes de discusión coordinadas (preguntas), contribuciones en proyectos y análisis-evaluación del trabajo de expertos en diferentes campos de las ciencias que son afines a mi formación, valores e intereses, no comprendo dichos cambios numéricos.

Asimismo, también creo que desde dentro de RG, participando activamente y con originalidad, amén de criterio y críticas constructivas al sistema, es como se obtendrá mejoría en su funcionamiento y el resultado final.

Saludos

José Luis