Which ResearchGate features are most useful to you and how would you like to improve them?
Collecting my (and others) papers in a simple way; plus Q&A.
Needed: entering literature from someone else; so I can link the citations.
Dear Walther, I completely agree, especially with your second suggestion (entering literature from someone else). As for the first, you can bookmark the papers you are interested in but I think it would be good if one could add tags to any bookmark so that they are easier managed and searched. It also indeed would be great to have a possibility to bookmark questions in addition to (or sometimes instead of) following them.
RG can be improved in following ways:
1-by adding the possibility of automatic multiple downloads (like science direct)
2- Removing the downvote button or at least prohibiting multiple downloads in the same question by one person.
3- checking and Removing the duplicate (or very similar) questions by editors.
I like
1. Q&A ... creating an on-line international forum.
2. Sharing news (e.g. call for chapter, research opportunity)
I believe RG can help a great role providing a big online library for the researcher In future.
You may have a look at my question:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_missing_in_ResearchGate
Questions and Answers is the best feature in Researchgate that I find most useful. There are some little areas that need improvement, since always there is a room for improvement.
I like the question and answer facility.
I think RG can improve auto search option for citation of our article.
I would go for a better match between what has been actually published in a scientific journal and how it is exposed in RG.
Example:
Different co-authors from the same publication 'A' expose publication 'A' in different ways/forms, and some co-authors define them as data sets whereas other co-authors define them as publications, which may cause unnecessary confusion.
I like the "send privately" option in response to the full-text requests (one can send relatively large files easily that have copyright restrictions). I also appreciate the brand new (but very much requested) possibility to change the publication type.
What I would need (many people will probably disagree) the conference abstract category.
Thank you and kind regards, Balázs
Q/A – Ability to get a wider response from peers and a nice meeting place with likeminded people. Problem with too many questions and some of them too basic to advanced. Some way of classifying the questions in addition to the topic, also level – Basic, Intermediate, Advanced – would help to respond better.
Contributions – Helps in organizing and interchanging publications. Allows to send privately in case of copyright problems. It is a slow process to add publications manually. If that can be simplified. Also there is a discrepancy in citations between RG and Google. If that can be sorted it is better.
I would like ResearchGate to be more accurate in presenting the authors information. I have often felt that the number of contributions keep on varying at different of time, e.g. in my own case some times about 50 less contributions are showed on my Overview page, at times they get updated and many a times they are not.
One of the most useful aspects of Research Gate is the Q&A. In this section, you can find young scientists who request help for a research problem. Also, there are "attractive" questions which capture my interest & initiate interesting discussions. I learned a lot from Q&A. Upvoting an answer is fine unless it is done to gain favors from someone. Anonymous downvoting is "unscientific". I shall repeat my earlier suggestion: any one who downvotes an answer ought to see a message from RG management instructing him/her to give the "correct" or the "alternative" answer within 3 days while keeping him/her anonymous. If there is no response, the downvote is cancelled automatically. I am repeating this suggestion because I am sure that some persons have misused downvoting. There is a university from which I have never got an upovote but I got a good number of downvotes for chemistry questions (as if somebody, there, appointed himself as the master of chemical knowledge !!).
I think that one of useful aspect of RG is the connection.
So it will be improved:
1. Internal mail: it could be more efficient, with folders and so on..
2. The possibility to chose what kind of informations I receive in my personal e-mail. I know some researchers that do not follow their own profile on RG because they say that they receive spam in their own email
3. Possibility of chat! It would be a chance to chat with great researchers all around the world.
Q&A is one of good feature in Rgate. The automatic citation needs to be improved as it does not follow near google scholar
An update: the improved way of presenting Stats (introduced last week (?)) is really a great deal, IMHO. I find it very transparent and an order of magnitude more informative than the previous version (which was not bad, but this one is much better). Thanks, RG! Balázs
I totally agree with Dr. Nizar, on the question of downvoting. It should not be kept anonymous. It becomes a strange way of disrespect for other people's honest opinions.
An interesting weighty discussion from different point of views.
Have a look on this:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_have_you_learned_from_RG_so_far/34
It's odd that there are questions about RG such as this one and those of colleagues Mahmoud and Kamal yet they censor others. I recently asked a question about the RG Factor for members to consider. It seems to me to make sense to get a few opinions before sending a suggestion to RG. If no one is in favor of the suggestion, why bother? I simply asked if it would be better for answers to be weighted more than questions. Questions can be written in five minutes; good substantive answers may take 30 minutes or more. Yet RG gives more weight to 20 questions than to 400 answers. RG deleted my question. I've also noticed that the "Feedback" feature no longer includes an easy way to make suggestions by topic (and to vote on a suggestion if it has already been made). It's now basically a set of FAQ and if your topic is not included you can "contact" them and we all know what happens to contact forms. I suppose there are too many members for them to deal with.
Dear John, I disagree (to some extent) to give more weight to answers because of two reasons, one practical and one "empirical".
The practical reason is the point of view of RG: If Q&A is a good feature, there should be interesting (provoking, ... "down to" blantantly obvious) questions "to keep the show going", i.e. it is the interest of RG to "compensate" authors for formulating questions. And, obviously they do their job, they ask questions (of various quality). Even if I don't agree with the somewhat artificial "higher-valued" questions, I understand RG's behaviour in this sense.
Now comes the "empirical" reason: I myself asked 3 questions and contributed with ca. 70 "answers" (they are partly answers, partly comments on answers, or comments on comments). Why so low number of questions? Because I don't want to ask silly questions kind of l'art pour l'art. The questions I asked were on purpose, I am/I was really interested in the answers. So if the ratio of Q/A is ~ 3/70 of such kind of people like me, then for us the "compensation" in RG score seems to be realistic to have some motivation to ask questions. (I emphasize I do not ask questions just to increase my RG score.)
Now, additionally an interesting observation (after all we are researchers, right?): I have seen researchers here who have had a very high (~60) RG score composed of 60% publications, 20% of questions and 20% of answers and now, since December 2014 the part of publication completely disappeared and the RG score is composed only of Q and A part (so the actual RG score went down to ~24). I do not know what happened, whether it is a computation error of RG or what else, but anyhow, even if I don't mind too much the RG score (I hope many of you agree:) this is not a good news.
Thanks for reading that, kind regards, Balázs
Behind the RG issues that were mentioned, I would like to raise the issue of publications and wrong number of citations generated by Research Gate! The relation to Google Scholar citation and/or some other academic services should be established in order to overcome this problem! Then, there will be no need to use many services, but one!
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2014_08_25/caredit.a1400214
In my opinion RG Score should be increasing only. Once it is increased should not decline.
The Q&A part is very useful an helpful in my mind. I found it very helpful and interesting because I can solve my problem easily.
All features and options are great. However, it is important to have an RG Mobile Application.
Dear Artur,
RG is too good to:
* meet researches in the same area;
*meet researches from all World;
*file all my work and show them to all;
*ask and answers questions and learn more about my area;
*make good friends!
I believe that it'll be good to have a list of áreas of easy access to facilitate finding the areas and the following researchers.
I like to much participate on RG!
Regards,
Vanessa
Maybe Research Gate could finally solve the emerging problem of false Institutions, false tittles, false researcher names and huge copy/paste plagiarism in answers!
Dear @Henk, please be more specific. I was not speaking about that issue, but false data of researcher(s)! Of course, I have not opted for giving the Institute to everyone, but for true data on Institution and affiliation, if mentioned, should be true!
Dear friends, have you noticed the new feature in publications. Now we do have an option of adding an unpublished work. What is your opinion about and / or experience, if any?
Dear Ljubomir,
Concerning the unpublished work: I believe that what we think about "publication" today (or especially what we thought 10 years ago) in ca. 5 years it will be outdated. I think there will be so many ways to make data, results, concepts available, and among them reliable ones, that the whole business will look like different. (Also including the predatory journals, hijacked journals, etc. as the shadow side of all this development.) I believe we will see more negative results, much more thorough reviews (or open reviews like at EGU discussion journals) and many yet uncommon form of publishing (= making work publicly available).
I consider the creation of such a possibility as a (eventually compulsory?) step ahead.
Thank you and kind regards,
Balázs
Dear @Artur and friends, have you seen new format, RG format.It is ResearchGate’s new interactive document format that offers a new way for you to read research. "RG Format is ResearchGate’s new enriched format that we designed to change the way people interact with research. RG Format turns a document that is static into one that is interactive and social by letting researchers add their feedback directly to sections of a publication. This gives authors real-time feedback on their work and lets the people reading a publication gauge its impact and discuss it with the authors and other experts.
To neatly display information and provide a more comprehensive reading experience, RG Format uses a split-screen design showing text on the left and enriched content such as clickable citations, feedback, and figures on the right."
https://explore.researchgate.net/display/news/2015/02/12/Introducing+the+RG+Format
https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/RG+Format
Dear @Artur and friends, just about an hour ago, ResearchGate has introduced the new colourful outlook, it looks better and it seems more functional and faster. Look at the top of the page. Also, search function is better, as it was long time ago.
Dear @Ljubomir,
I also noticed my photo is made into a circle by RG. It now shows me (and maybe you) more handsome! Anyway RG is improving in a right direction. I hope their scoring algorithm (RG scores) give fair scores, too.
I doubt about RG score algorithm dear @Mahmoud. It is a deep secret!
It more useful design to change the way people interact with research. RG Format turns a document that is static into one that is interactive and social by letting researchers adding their feedback directly to sections of a publication. This gives authors real-time feedback on their work and lets the people reading a publication gauge its impact and discuss it with the authors and other experts. Moreover was designed to change the way people interact with research once RG Format turns a document that is static into one that is interactive and social by letting researchers add their feedback directly to sections of a publication, displayng information and providing a more comprehensive reading experience,
- A link/box for uploaded scientific/personal photos through RG
- a link to Scientific References
- Possibility of sorting the Q/A/Publication given by positive votes (Distribution)
- A LAMP to find that the members are ON or OFF
Thanks to Raoof, for sending this Q to me. I like the way RG allows us to put our research together. This is far better than filing hard copies. Most of all, I was able to find 2 co-authors on RG. There are several things that I would like to see improved. I believe RG must show new members how to navigate so that they do not ask the same questions again. It took me some time to figure that out.
It would be most educational if REASONS SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR DOWNVOTES. DOWNVOTES REDUCE THE SCORE AND DISCOURAGE PARTICIPATION.
Very good suggestions dear @Raoof.
I do like new green surface at stats page consisting of five sub-pages with info about publications views, publications downloads, profile views, most cited books, papers...
Also, every member has such green sticker with statistical info at HOME page.
Let me urge again for explanation field which must be filled in when answer is downvoted. No anonymity!
At the moment, there are so many repetitive questions. somehow new questions should be checked!
I also second the following suggestions:
1- Possibility of sorting the Q/A(suggested by dear @ Raoof)
2- explanation field for down votes (suggested by dear @ Ljubomir)
Dear @Artur, dear friends, in last couple of months we have lost publications page!!! When you do receive a RG mail about "New publications from...", after clicking the link "View all new research", it brings you to the Home page!!!
I do miss Publications page!
Dear all, I also second Ljubomir Jacics info and also would like "get bnack" the former detailed list of "new Publications" (which literally displayed up to 4 or 5 new publications).- The new "View all new research" is useless because -as I found out- the most personally interesting new publications most of the time are the last author(s) the article title etc. will not be displayed any more.
Best wishes and regards, have a nice weekend, Wolfgang
My dear fellows, what is your impression about new feature TIMELINE? It has filters as former CONTRIBUTIONS.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ljubomir_Jacic2/timeline
Introducing Timeline is really very nice one.
I really do not like downvote on a question or answer.
Now I have seen that there was established the "filter function" which makes it a bit more easier to control (as well as to easily overview citations as well as reads of ) a certain publication.,. That's o.k. for me at the moment It might be I have made my "shot" (see above Re # 055) a bit too early.... Best regards, WM.
Dear Ljubomir:
what I found out:
i) if you select in your "timeline" and then click into one of your articles you uploaded to RG perhaps you'll find too that there is missing a "DOWNLOAD" icon for your article*), whereas when I go to YOUR profile, choose "publications" in your timeline and select an article by clicking I find a download button as previously installed in my own publication settings too.
ii) Saving your article in your timeline - as the file you uploaded it - seems to be made impossible .../ will result only in a html-version,
*) Maybe this as a consequence of misuse? or other reason?
Would you mind to - eventually - check this with YOUR and MY timeline-publication features too?
Regards, Wolfgang
I will try my dear @Wolfgang. I will check all the options.OK. Your publications downloads works. I have attached one download, but it works for others also. At my timeline publications, I really do not see the download button!!! I do not realise what is the problem?
Best, Ljubomir
OK, I have found it. It is a bit hidden, but you may download it. Please, do check, here are the hints. On the right from "Request feedback" you will find 3 vertical dots. By pointing this 3 dots, you will get a few options: Full-text sources, Open reviews, Edit, Generate a DOI and Download. If you can, please try to check it for me. Of course, better option is DOWNLOAD button.
I also think that differentiation of the forum is important as well as a discussion among all the RG participants by an interchange of your mails also. The interdisciplinary participation worldwide appear essential first of all for scientists working on Bionanotechnology that involve many scientific disciplines and competences. At this purpose the facility to interchange opinions and papers is ,in my opinion,essential.
Q&A is the best feature of RG. Q&A through RG is found to be more fast and reliable because experts and professionals give answer with reference which helps everyone a lot. Another one is the easy availability of full text papers through Research Gate. Many papers which we could not access through other way can request here and author can send the full text of it.
We have got our Contribution page back! It is much more easier now! We must fight for publication page to be brought back!
Current Project was introduced recently at Overview page. It is good feature.
I like the whole background and the way the things are organised here, i mean how the home feed is organised with the people we follow answering the questions and letting us know the new things from the questions and the remedies from the answers etc. But the thing i like in RG is that we can interact with the world's most best and eminent researchers through Q&A. And i don't think i would like any changes to be made as far as i'm concerned in this issue.
Best Features:
1. Quantification of researcher at individual level based on quality of research output and other academic contributions (Q & A).
2. Ranking of Institutions and percentile based standing of individual researcher based on RG Score and/or Impact Points (?).
3. Contribution page listing all recent and previous contributions.
4. Scope for interaction with researcher from across the globe through discussion in question and answer section.
5. Up-voting for encouragement of good question and answers.
6. Automated Bio-data of individuals and its regular auto updates.
Improvements Expected (Suggestions):
1. Re-inclusion and disclosures of impact points of individual researcher (based on cumulative impact factor of journal publications).
2. Disclosures of identity of down-voters so that random down-voting be restricted. At least restrict down-voting by colleagues. Else down-voter has to comment the reason behind each down-votes.
3. Subject level ranking (and metrics) of researcher (or say top 100 researcher) based on Citation, Impact Points, and RG Score among members.
-Sumanta
Availability of papers. Also, it is a platform to share the ideas and discussion.
The update page is not available for a long time. It brings a message: "Your updates are currently unavailable. Please check again later."
I agree with Nizar Matar......
It is a good platform for researchers to share their contributions in the scientific field.
RG is the only platform where people from different corners exchange ideas and knowledge. Despite the differences within the communities, this is the podium where people work on the humanitarian ground. However, it is the well-known phrase that " every family has a black sheep" and therefore RG family is not free from the same. Their job is to demoralize and downvote without the sound basis. I have seen scores of debates and discussions where people have the dust-up with each other and rewarded with the plethora of downvotes. Though there is "friendly rebuttal" a source of the solution but, humans are humans. Regarding the improvement, RG must provide access to all (Institutional id's shouldn't be mandatory) so that every interesting being get involved. Moreover, the option for the downvote should be discarded permanently or the reason for the downvote should be made compulsory.
Researchgate endorsement system was brought to previous way of endorsements. This is very good improvement of this feature, as you can do multiple endorsements, and you have previous endorsements of a certain researcher visible.
Indeed this is a good move but, there are other features also which can be improved.
it is a funny business, academics have the opportunity to discuss how their individual areas of research may impact on society and making their research more accessible to a broader audience.
Endorsements do not work at all!
Statistics bring strange results in terms of numbers of citations, reads and profile views. I hope it will be solved soon.
An example from link attached. Reads 557 vs 38...!
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ljubomir_Jacic2/stats
I find the far better exposure of research to world research community in a most useful manner , and in return , the citation index finds a quantum jump i a shortest possible time. Secondly , i find question -answer relay , so educative , informative and recreative as well , many a times ( you get answers , simply out of box having no link at all to your question), but RG , a mind blowing concept as a whole, we get so much ...
I agree with prof. Ljubomir
Also about citations didn't know how it works.
Regards
I agree with excellent answers of our colleague Prof. Dr. Ljubomir Jacić,
In RG platform, we are sharing and exchanging our knowledge FOR FREE, and creating e-groups of research, in addition, RG score represents a competition factor.
For more development, I suggest to create an annual meeting for RG members.
Regards, Emad
Regarding Ljubomirs comment # 068:
Dear Ljubomir, "taking the tour" as offered as an example on your profile /stats [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ljubomir_Jacic2/stats ] - which links to your basic personal profile - I was unable to find your "Stats"-section ... I only was able to have a look into:
Overview - Contributions - Info Scores - Research interests. Would you mind to finish the sentence (the "strange findings") "Reads 557 vs 38... !" just in order to be able to comprehend the whole situation?
I guess for now that you see the number of "readings" (of publications) as compared / vs. 38 VIEWS (readings=visits) of your profile ....
If I have understood the "new" counting / calculation "algorithms" there has been a change in the methodology: now (since some days, perhaps a week for now) not only the "views" of any of your (written, presented, published) "publications" = articles, conference contributions, abstracts, and others, etc. , will be counted but also the Answers or Questions you might have contributed to RG the last week, (anytime? of your participation in RG). You are informed about with / in the new RG-e-mail-message: "Your weekly stats report is here [e.g.Week ending 17-05-21]" but some days ago also I was informed (e. g. cf. go to your STATS, find "READS - AND the "i" in the circle and move the mouse over the encircled 'i': then you'll find:
>> Your total number of reads is made up of publication reads, project update reads, and question views.
To me, Researchgate is a platform for researchers.My article "Studies ......" was never exposed to researchers as long as it was with "Journal of Ethnopharmacology" and it demands $ ..even now after a lapse of more than 20 years.When I uploaded my article in Researchgate citations and views rose to incredible numbers.Such a vital information was blocked for a long time from new researchers.
2. Researchgate should open new platforms for publications and should come forward to protect ownership rights free of cost.It should be online to make things better.I can add more.
You are right dear @Wolfgang. Statistics pahe is only visible personally. I wanted to point out that there is huge diference bitween statistics and data about you at home page (see blue section on the right side). You may check it and compare. Last week, number of my reads was 557 according to home page, while according to statistics page, it was 38!!!
It is big difference. What is good data?
Dear @Wolfgang, please check at your pages and comment. Thanks.
Recently in other thread (comments to Project "Science as it happens")
@Stefan Gruner has shared this explanation which he obtained from RG support-people:
'Solution of the puzzle: "question views" and "project update reads" are now also counted as "reads" --- not only the downloads of my published papers'
Dear Ljubomir, dear Fedor: As I said and wrote in my Re#072...
"...not only the "views" *) of any of your (written, presented, published) "publications" = articles, conference contributions, abstracts, and others, etc. , will be counted but also the Answers or Questions you might have contributed **) to RG the last week, (anytime? of your participation in RG). You are informed about with / in the new RG-e-mail-message: "Your weekly stats report is here [e.g.Week ending 17-05-21]"
Which ResearchGate features you find most useful and how could they be further improved?. .... and
".... go to your STATS, find "READS - AND the "i" in the circle and move the mouse over the encircled 'i': then you'll find:
>> Your total number of reads is made up of publication reads, project update reads, and question views.
Do you find "Research Interest" page useful, if yes, how do you make an effective use of it.
Dear Ljubomir: you are referring to the LINK on the PERSONAL Profile Page in the upper menu line (most right position) and/or the rectangle right side....right?
I find there [clicking the link in the upper menu bar] all the recommended articles and other information about personal search, Q/A matter (I do not know if the data included there are visible only to me or are publicly offered - could you perhaps try that for me from your side?) [if the latter I would think over my "setting traces on RG" .... and just to be honest:
in the "rectangle" RESEARCH INTERESTS ( middle right side) I found (in the first place) that I (for sure some month ago) was interested in an article (PAS - vs. Alcian Blues stains ) that I found "offered" only by title and authors on RG, but without an uploaded original article (naturally, because it had been published in 1960).
Just for "fun" (to see what happens) I requested "FULL TEXT from the authors" and naturally got no answer (or saw a reaction with reagrd to uploading the article) so far.
Unfortunately I had forgotten to follow this article, but today (also by reading and "executing" your new QUESTION no. 081 in this thread I was remembered about/ pointed again to that request.... I have written there a personal comment, which might help others NOT TO request the full original text, but to think practically and provided also a link wghere to get the article from publishers sources...:
"----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
Regarding (see there): www.researchgate.net/publication/9863793_A_Comparative_Study_of_the_Periodic_Acid-Schiff_and_Alcian_Blue_Stains1
(see also below @ "ARTICLE") The article most possibly will not be uploaded into the RG-archive by the authors (which might be too old today or even died meanwhile... we do not know), I guess.... so if one wants to read that original article, one has to dig a bit..... Interestingly, when searching for the respective diocument in WWW, one can find the LINK to [NB: copied and pasted from there] ==> PubMed / US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health Search database /Search term
ARTICLE A Comparative Study of the Periodic Acid-Schiff and Alcian B... [= https://www.researchgate.net/publication/9863793_A_Comparative_Study_of_the_Periodic_Acid-Schiff_and_Alcian_Blue_Stains1 ]
- Format: Abstract [Send to]
J Invest Dermatol. 1960 Nov;35:305-7.
A comparative study of the periodic acid-Schiff and Alcian blue stains. by FUSARO RM, GOLTZ RW.PMID: 13702711 [Indexed for MEDLINE] Free full text , further:
Full text links:📷 = ELSEVIER OPEN ACCESS (= https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022-202X(15)49466-7) but if trying to link to [https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022-202X(15)49466-7] in order to retrieve (or at least to get access for reading only) there follows no reaction (display stays blank). Only after deactivating the blocking function of antivirus software for cookies&/or ads I was able to get access to the article, the former link changing to: http://www.jidonline.org/article/S0022-202X(15)49466-7/pdf which contains the article. Thanks to ELSEVIER Publ. Company for offering old/older Articles in their published Journals for Free/FREE-OPEN ACCESS. It might be courteous by RG-personnel to upload into RG-ARCHIVES or at least create a possibility for serious RG-participants /researchers to upload such articles into the (eventually personal) RG-Archives ("cross-reference") like this "opportunity".
New layot of question has 100 answers per page! It is hard to follow the answers. It was better organized when we have had 10 answers per page. What is your opinion?
Yes, its a hard work to read all the contributions on one page. Please change it!
RG opens the opportunity to upload old and new own essays which are widely scattered in many journals, papers, conference volumes. Also talking with others is nice.
@Ljubomir: Wouldn't it be better to let the user choose the number of items per page (say, from several options like 10, 20,50 and 100), as different people have different preferences?
Dear @Artur, I think that author of research question should be the editor of his own thread, enabling him to delete inappropriate answers, duplicate answers, to decide the length of page in terms of answer etc...
Dear @Ljubomir, I guess it would be a reasonable idea (maybe not necessarily to delete the answers but at least to suggest for deletion to RG moderators).
In Re to Ljubomir's and Artur's question(s): "New layot [layout] of question has 100 answers per page! It is hard to follow the answers. It was better organized when we have had 10 answers per page" and "@Ljubomir: Wouldn't it be better to let the user choose the number of items per page (say, from several options like 10, 20,50 and 100), as different people have different preferences?" I would like to add:
Yes, it is quite laborious now to check whether one is at the end of thread - Is it really?? - (or, as it was my 'practical experience' of the last week, WHERE / WHICH are the last 10 answers of the thread) but if this is made only to hold someone off from reading the answers then that change in my opinion is the wrong decision; because one could achieve such much more simplier....!
Readability has decreased IMHO therefore and to be able to relate QUICKLY to replies already given in a thread some time before. But the most unconvincing property of the new Q&A-layout is that - especiallyfor long threads/many given answers one cannot refer to by defining ANY answer by number (except one has the time and mood to do a headcount!).
If there comes the time that Q/A-content in RG by common acceptance will be OR honestly or honorably is CITABLE for scientific reasons and referencing, such a simplified bland layout IMHO is counterproductive!
Best wishes and regards to you all and have a nice and successful new week!
@Wolfgang: Perhaps a permalink for each answer would better achieve the goals you set (citability etc.)
@Artur: I do not know whether such [permalink] is implemented already or if that would be a future possibility to do...
I would like also to find my OWN contributions in a Q/A thread much more easily than it (at least) SEEMS to be now...
My most urgent wish would be to get a function to sort questions to a certain suobject by the date they we're asked. Also I want the possibility to sort my answers by the date I provided them (back).
I would like an advanced search option when searching through the ResearchGate content, e.g. similar like the advanced google search option or better. In general, more options for searching and sorting would be beneficial.
Make available an open "Suggestions for improvements in ResearchGate" webpage where the users can submit their suggestions and read the suggestions submitted by others (and possible to recommend their suggestions), and which will be read by the ResearchGate development team.
Data implemented in questions and answers like ' Question asked' "3 years ago" or even "months ago" are nonsense.
ResearchGate should provide the "real time date of entry", i .e. and means that the addition of "an hour ago", or "one day ago" or "two days ago" -"asked" or "added an answer" should be omitted and be replaced by a real "time stamp" (e.g. in a manner like: 'Posted 2017-11-10_22.50' or 'Posted 2017-11-11_00:01') Regards W.M.
RG: Don't limit the space of answers by tricking writers of answers with blocking **into** further writing by baring the way with "icons" Thank you for ADDING your ANSWER and more (one will not see any more what is typed into the form....
see the FOOTNOTE of my answer to:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/how_can_i_prepare_002_m_sodium_phosphate_buffer_pH_69_with_0006_M_sodium_chloride
which I enclose here for convenience:
QUOTE:
"PS: REALLY NASTY and ANNOYING is the "NEW" impossibility to create further text necessary from the point on where RG obviously limits the amount of characters (Cf. the MARK °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°in the text above [NB: in this answer see below!]) used to answer in depth.... (I mean the permanent superposition of Icons [right in this position now myXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX written letters/characters are superpositioned by the statement: | THANK YOU FOR ADDING YOUR ANSWER | and in rectangle: "ADD FILES - View conditions for sharing content - CANCEL - SAVE ANSWER -and the last icon here (ridiculous!) in Blue colored rectangle:
" "VIEW MORE QUESTIONS"
This answer has [been] edited a 4th time now....I thought, ResearchGate demands a great deal of scientificity or "scholarliness" /"scholarly standard". IMHO, if RG is going to force commenters to act like on twitter-platform (= SHORT and with limited characters) please inform generally and publicly on that °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°fact via RG-notifications and expect further egress and withdrawal of commenters.
END OF QUOTE.... the following from:??
NSWER -and ���_
EDITED 17-11-12,17:30 MEZ/CET for ==> **into** (in first sentence)
To be able to write and edit questions and answers in ResearchGate more or less like in MS Word would have been helpful. And that when copying from e.g. MS Word into ResearchGate question and answer boxes - your original text including various formats (e.g. boldface, italics, hyperlinks, superscripts, subscripts, equations, positioning, etc.) would still be like the original one after pasting into ResearchGate!
Have you noticed the problem of recommending the selected answers? Do you see the field "recommend" ?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Writing