I am sad about the way some people perceive the RG metrics.

I want to know who reads my posts and where they are.

If some people insist on using RG as LinkedIn and Facebook, then RG will suffer the same fate as the other two platforms: *lose credibility and members*.

I agree with you dear Doctor 🌷

According to my score ( 20, 446 ), (2,300) are by non-RG members 🌷

DearDiana A. Ali .

Thank you for your answer. In fact, this question affects all researchers at researchgate.net

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

It should be taken in account of both RGI & RGS. But i do not know how to find out the reads are made out RG members or none members.

Intersting point!

DearP. Contreras you are right. This also happens in our country due to the fact that Internet search engines find the desired article. Not all researchers have their own profile on the RG or simply do not want to go into it.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Thank you dear Abdulaziz Albannai

For your interest in the issue

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Dear Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich To my opinion, it should be. By taking into account the reads by non-members, RG can enhance the credibility and precision of both RGI and RGS.

Thanks!

Thank you dear Arbind K. Choudhary P. Contreras

For your interest in the issue and your comments.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Yes, it should ne taken into consideration. Because, interested people see the research summary and read it. So, read by them need to be considered.

Thank you dear Akash Gupta

For your answer.

Regards,Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Yes I think we definitely need to consider.

I think that will be helpful.

Why not ... I think it can be taken into consideration

Yes, I agreed with the researchers. The reading is taken into account when calculating these indicators

RG score breakdown reveals scores for four parameters like publications, questions, answers and followers. It is not clear how do they allocate scores for publications is it the number of citations or the number of readers or something else.

Thank you dear colleagues Tanvir Singh Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak

Lamia_Al-Naama

For your contribution to the discussion of this issue.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Dear Jassim Mohsen Abed

I fully support you

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Dear Harasit Kumar Paul

Thanks for your input to the discussion.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Dear Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich , thanks for sharing the question. Could you explain the abbreviations RGI and RGS indicators. Thanks.

Thank you dear Ljubomir Jacić

for your interest in the issue.

By RGI I mean - Research Interest

Under the RGS it is - RG Score

I would be grateful for your opinion.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Yes should be add in RGS and RGI, but i think its step to bring them in RG network.

Dear Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich where did you pick your value of 10.000 reads by non RG members?

Thank you dear Aijaz Panhwar

for your opinion and answer

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Thank you dear Ljubomir Jacić

for your comments. Indeed, I was wrong with more than 0. I will try to fix it.I actually have more than 1000.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Just tell me where you do find this value. Is this value come from Overview page, Statistics page or Weekly Report? I would lihe to share my values, but I do not know where to pick these values for reads.Thanks dear Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Dear Ljubomir Jacić

All information is found on our statistics pages (general). If analyzed by days, there will be confusion. Reading questions, answers, projects will be taken into account before trimming weekly statistics. It won't add amounds.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Dear Dr. Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich , this is interesting, so the other reads means non-member of RG?

DearAbdulaziz Albannai

Yes exactly. Thanks for your interest in this issue.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Dear Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich , here are my Reads data.

Dear Ljubomir Jacić

Thank you for your message

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

I am sad about the way some people perceive the RG metrics.

I want to know who reads my posts and where they are.

If some people insist on using RG as LinkedIn and Facebook, then RG will suffer the same fate as the other two platforms: *lose credibility and members*.

Dear Edwiges Gabrielle Hoffnung Grata , I think that most of us follow such info about the readers, their institutions, countries where they come from etc. Such important information are available mostly in weekly report, and, of course, at the relevant page for every research item.

Dear participants in the discussionEdwiges Gabrielle Hoffnung Grata Ljubomir Jacić

You are correct that the value of a platform is determined by its participants. But we also interact with non-RG members. This does not earn us points in the weekly statistics. I tried to access the RG outside my profile. I was able to find the materials I needed. My articles on the RG were also picked up by Internet search engines. DearP. Contreras writes about the problems of registration with the RG in a number of countries. Is there really such a problem? I hope that soon everyone who wants to be a member of RG will be able to do it.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

RG seems to be strictly designed to promote only the interests of RG

RG appears not to consider reads by non RG members when computing total research interests and RG score

RG is a fact investigation network which is common research requirements for RG and Non-RG RG members. Non-RG member ' s Reads along with RG member' s Reads should be considered for computing total research interests and RG score. Dr. Vijayan Gurumurthy Iyer,

That is fair enough Dr. Vijayan Gurumurthy Iyer

I hope this is the way for counting and scoring in total RG score.

Dear Vijayan Gurumurthy Iyer Chinaza Godswill Awuchi

Thanks for your input on this discussion.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

I think RG is more skewed in favour towards members than non-members

May be rule say no, but investigation skill of researcher get curtailed.

Dear Alexander Maryukhin Augustine Senanu Kukah Vijayan Gurumurthy Iyer

Thank you for your participation in the discussion. Your opinions are very important to me.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Thanks for your research motivation.

yes

Some institutions and organizations use platforms such as RG, Google scholar, etc. to do background check on their potential employees. RG should be able to capture all career information related to RG members

RG is very interesting and interactive platform

DearChinaza Godswill Awuchi

thanks for your answer to the question. I agree that the scientific weight of the site is great. What can I say if many large journals post articles of their issues on the RG, just like they do in WoS and Scopus. I would like to understand if it is possible to simplify the registration on the RG site. I know independent researchers from among my colleagues. They have difficulty with their affiliation, or linking their articles, etc. and they cannot log in.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Interesting discussion.

Yes, it should be included, as they are also the part of the scientific community.

DearTanvir Singh Amina Sultan

Thanks for your participation in the discussion.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Researchgate portal is an open one, available to all, free of charge. So, without any doubt, the participation of non-RG members in READS MUST be taken into account. As it was mentioned by Tanvir Singh , we all do belong to scientific community.

Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Reads by Non RG members should count for more. Consumption by non consumers in any market segment has the potential to broaden or enlarge the market.

Dear Kheepe Lawrence Moremi Ljubomir Jacić

Thank you. I am very glad that you expressed your opinion.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Interesting discussion

Dear Rasha Majid Abd Ulameer Alhumairi

Thanks for your participation in the discussion.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Whether reading by non-members of the RG should be taken into account in the calculation of RGI and RGS indicators?

Dear Ahmed Hasan

Yes, that's what the question is about

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Dear Ahmed Hasan , you are supposed to answer the question, give your comment, but not to repeat the answer asked by Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich .

Worth following

Dear Colleagues

Diana A. Ali P. Contreras Abdulaziz Albannai Arbind K. Choudhary Akash Gupta Tanvir Singh Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak Lamia Al Naama Jassim Mohsen Abed Ljubomir Jacić Aijaz Panhwar Edwiges Gabrielle Hoffnung Grata Chinaza Godswill Awuchi Vijayan Gurumurthy Iyer Debasish Borah Ahmed Hasan Rasha Majid Abd Ulameer Alhumairi Kheepe Lawrence Moremi

Thanks for your participation in the discussion.

I dare to summarize.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

In my opinion, the reads by Non-RG members should be equally counted as well. It is true that many people do not become RG members due to the non-availability of institutional email ids.

DearGibji Nimasow

Thank you for your opinion. Yours sincerely, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Yes- the idea is to share research and make articles more accessible.

If yes, then the reading by non-members of the RG must be considered in calculating the RGI and RGS indicators, or no, we have not reached a solution, as it is a matter of the management mechanism of this platform

I had been wondering who the non-members are. It seems like most of my reads come from non-members.

Dear Stephan C. Mann

As I wrote above. The first group of non-RG members are Internet search engines. In the help center, they were named bots, scans, robots. Everything is clear with them. There is an article or other material on the Internet is found by a person who does not yet have registration on the RG site. He can download or read our material. I believe that such a review should somehow be reflected in our RGI. So far we get 0 points for this.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

To Stephan C. Mann: There are still many people (students for example) which will use Google Search and find some Research & Publications published at RG platform...

Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich & Anton Vrdoljak thanks much for your very helpful responses! I do recall doing Google.Scholar serches and being able to access full-text articles on RG. Free access was great but it does seem that the author, in this case us, should get RG credit.

Dear Stephan C. Mann

Thanks for your answers to this question. I agree with you. If we analyze our profiles, we will see that a fairly large percentage are reads by non-members of the RG.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

نعم - الفكرة هي مشاركة الأبحاث وجعل المقالات أكثر سهولة.

Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich-I guess that allowing access to full-text articles to other platforms is part of the good that RG does. Still, the points would be nice.

Dear Stephan C. Mann

I agree with you. Perhaps the https://www.researchgate.net leadership will review the Reading assessment. And these readers will be appreciated.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

People can get assess to one's research or/answers via the search engines results for their search. There are virtually no new questions, close to over 95% had been asked, Topics and word sensitive search would return RG's repository of related researches and certain comments/interactions. I do have a handful of "other" reads from non registered (on RG) visitors, inclusive faculty members, twitters and my linked accounts in Orcid, Elsevier and Linkedln. They should count(appreciated), they are impacts through 'other network interface' with RG.

1) On the opinion that should 'others reads' be counted, in RG scores? Yes, it's part of interest and impacts that lead from reading to download and citing.

2) Does 'other' reads [from logged out members and non members via Springer Nature, Elsevier, etc]? I would like you to infer from RG's FQs answers on 'reads' : "To show the full reach of your work, we count reads from both logged in ResearchGate members and logged out readers. To make sure reads gives you an accurate picture of the attention your research is getting, a read isn't counted when you or one of your co-authors access your own publication, when you view your own question, answer, or project update, or if you or a collaborator looks at one of your own projects. It is also not counted when your work is accessed by an artificial traffic source (such as a robot or bot or [software that scoups inflated metrics])." Hope the information are understood, and are useful.

Dear Abiodun Christian Ibiloye

Thanks for your comment on this issue.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Yes it should be Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Dear Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich this is a somewhat unusual question and I must admit that I never thought about this. When I look at my attached Reads breakdown I see an entry for "Other reads". How do I / you know that these other reads are from non-members?

Frank T. Edelmann-I think other reads represent non-full-text reads by RG members.

A 'read' is counted each time someone views a publication summary (such as the title, abstract, and list of authors), clicks on a figure, or views or downloads the full-text. More official info:

https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Reads

Where do you find the RGI and RGS values?

• No, Stephan C. Mann t, it specifically refers to non-logged in users [logged out of RG Analytics and lawful register of details], hence the RG Analytics could not place their characteristics (affliation, registered details or valid identification (some surf anonymously or using different accounts)) but the source/point of entry into RG sites. Now, how would one know the "reads" were click-views from non members, this is a mixed up, or rather nusiance, usual and unlikely readers. Frank T. Edelmann . iThankfully, it counts as interest!

Dear Frank T. Edelmann

If you do not take into account scans, bots, robots (it is written about this on the page https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Reads). The next reason is that not all scientists are registered on the RG. They can find our materials for example through the Google Shcolar and read them. Oddly enough, this method of searching for information is very often used. All this is not reflected in the weekly update of our statistics.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Dear Colin Sokol Kuka

RGI is RG Interest

RGS is RG Score

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

If your work/paper is available to refer for non RG member then it should be considered as a read.

It is not counted.... But in my opinion that should be counted

Dear M.K. Tripathi Ravindra R Navthar

Thanks for your participation in the discussion.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Thank you dear colleagues

In general, the question remains open. If someone did not understand what I wrote above. I just wanted to draw the attention of the scientific community to the fact that we lose a percentage of readings every week. Robots and scans are easy to detect by technical means. All other readings (by unregistered users) need to be reflected in our statistics. We are now getting zero.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

"Other reads" represents good portion of my reads at all.

RG must expand her membership database, so that log-in new readers could increase. If non registered members can be identified by their registers with their entry points (emails [some have more than one, duplicates and credibility questioned], or linkedln account [perhabs trusted, partially verifiable], Springer Nature and Elsevier [depends on terms of aggrement, problems with interface integration, rights of authors or users who opted for privacy]). I don't know, but am sure this is complicated and can cause explosion in time to come. Every thing metric is subject to abuse, caution is needed with those most likely and with doubtable handle if control. Reads could be lost, but not H-index or S-index...proper dissemination makes citations more likely, updates increases reads even those that read the old, adding data with RGs DOI increases both reads and H-index.

My suggestions.

موضوع في غاية الاهمية

Dear Abiodun Christian Ibiloye Ljubomir Jacić

Thank you for your answer. This is very important and valuable to me.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Dear Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich it is still not really clear to me what the number "Other reads" in the Reads breakdown really means. How do we know that this count means reads by non-RG members? 😳

Dear Frank T. Edelmann

I will try to answer you. The RG team on the page outlined their vision (https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Reads). I that it is necessary to separate (robots, bots, scans) and reading by non-RG members. Attached files are a classic example of non-members. Because this is educational material for a course in zoology. Students are not registered on the RG website. They find a link to this brochure on Google Scholar and download it. An example with bots and scans. In our country, anti-plagiarism systems scan the entire array of the Internet, in the reports I saw my articles with RG. I am not discussing this. My idea. I would like to discuss the first point with the RG team. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone. If there is such an opportunity, I will be glad if the members of the RG will take part in the discussion. I am for the fact that the readings of non-members (except for bots, etc.) are somehow displayed in our statistics. While they are equated to bots.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Dear Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich many thanks indeed for the detailed explanation! I must admit that I never really cared about my reads count on RG. Personally I feel that things like reads and recommendations are not something to worry much about.

Highly agree with you dear dr. Pushkin

Dear Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich I still don't think that the point "Other Reads" has anything to do with reads by non-RG members. In my opinion "Other Reads" just refers to reads of various research items where RG members just read the title or Abstract but not the full text.

Dear Diana A. Ali

Thanks for participating in the discussion.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Dear Frank T. Edelmann

non-member readings

I have attached my screenshot of my brochure statistics. You can see how many readings are in the blank. If they were taken into account, then the impact of the book would be ten times higher.

This is a classic example. Since this is a textbook for students in the course of zoology. They are not registered with the RG. Find a link through Google Scholar and download it.

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich