Theres a new publication interest metric now available to users on researchgate regarding their papers. Theres a read and a full read? Are there any half reads? Do you think there is any use for this metric?
Yes, I think it is useful, because only "full-text read" seems to mean that somebody has been truly inerested in my paper - simple "read" may only indicate that somebody checked whether my paper might be interested but ascertained that it is not...
A "read" may indicate that someone has read the comments or checked the number of reads, or a follower checking the article information. I do not know if RG gives more points credit for a full text read.
I think a "read" is where they have a look at the paper page on rRG without downloading the pdf. perhaps the full read is counted when the pdf is downloaded?
Very likely. This also shows that researchers are more interested in articles information and exchanging ideas, and that few download pdfs to read full texts.
Its a shame that again RG make a big deal about citations. this system is definitely not fair for some scientists in narrow areas of research where there are not many others to cite their research.
It is just a local evaluation metrics meter. Personally,i recommend it.
Emad
Any metric is inherently flawed, but moe so, are subjective evaluations by committees who evaluate narrow areas of research, or multidisciplinary research. The alternative to any metric is a group of biased individuals evaluating one of their competitors.
Having my own journal, I no longer have "biased individuals" trying to stop me from publishing!
Aceil: "Any metric is inherently flawed, but moe so, are subjective evaluations" - as to me, I consider any system of subjective evaluations as incomparably better than any formal "metric": subjective evaluations are at least in principle based on scientific value of the evaluated paper (or scientific achievements of a scientist); they of course are also "inherently flawed" by dishonesty or incompetence of many "evaluators" ("peer"-reviewing is a nice example!), but an author of a paper scientifically valuable though not meeting formal criteria, or a scientist publishing an important comprehensive (so, time-demanding) monograph every 5 years, has some chance to be appropriately evaluated subjectively (not all reviewers are hostile or narrow-minded), while he/she has no chance whatsoever with the "objective metrics" system ("you have published only 2 papers in 10 years", or "your paper has not been peer-reviewed", so your will lose your job, your grant application will be automatically rejected, &c.! "Sorry, no ill-will, nobody to blame: objective metric has shown that you are worthless"! I wonder whether Darwin or Einstein would today have any chance to be esteemed...
Roman: I totally agree with your perspective: a subjective evaluation by impartial reviewers is much better than using a flawed metric without recognizing its limitations.
RG now seem to have added quite a few new statistical features for each author which is interesting!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers