I have observed that most of the forums are dominated by youngsters, particularly students. I have not found too many senior researchers or science leaders or well known researchers in their field on scientific forums including ResearchGate. My question is why are researchers not on these forums? Is it because they are busy in their research or they are not conformable with technology (internrt/forum) or they do not believe in these forums?
Good question. In my opinion:
1) Youngsters are more "home" with networks and virtual reality.
a) they learn from the discussions here.
b) ResearchGate (RG) represents an opportunity to make contacts, perhaps find colleagues, schools, ideas.
c) still, many RG members, young or older, do not display their picture on the profiles, creating a less personal presentation, inducing distrust.
2) Senior researchers are busy with the research.
3) Research representing the way of making a living, time being short, some may be afraid of wasting time.
4) It takes some altruist character to share ideas and information on networks such as RG. If there will be more altruist people, we would have a better world, better economy, less hunger pain and suffering. No wars.
5) Besides the scoring procedure offered by RG (needs votes from members by members), and articles exposure, there are no other rewards that I know of for participation in RG.
Attention members, ResearchGate staff, (Feedback, RG platform designers). Once the RG SCORE becomes important in CV, JOB finding or obtaining MONEY AWARDS for research, publications, the activity on RG will increase.
Mr. Gajendra, please tag also "feedback" if you can to assure that RG staff sees this subject that actually has a good feedback role.
6) I propose to young scientist to include in their Curriculum Vitae (CV) the RG score. It will not hurt. Perhaps will raise question such as "what it is", creating the opportunity for an answer. ResearchGate activity is great for the scientific community (all members, young and old) and for society at large.
Regards,
Adrian TW
Good question. In my opinion:
1) Youngsters are more "home" with networks and virtual reality.
a) they learn from the discussions here.
b) ResearchGate (RG) represents an opportunity to make contacts, perhaps find colleagues, schools, ideas.
c) still, many RG members, young or older, do not display their picture on the profiles, creating a less personal presentation, inducing distrust.
2) Senior researchers are busy with the research.
3) Research representing the way of making a living, time being short, some may be afraid of wasting time.
4) It takes some altruist character to share ideas and information on networks such as RG. If there will be more altruist people, we would have a better world, better economy, less hunger pain and suffering. No wars.
5) Besides the scoring procedure offered by RG (needs votes from members by members), and articles exposure, there are no other rewards that I know of for participation in RG.
Attention members, ResearchGate staff, (Feedback, RG platform designers). Once the RG SCORE becomes important in CV, JOB finding or obtaining MONEY AWARDS for research, publications, the activity on RG will increase.
Mr. Gajendra, please tag also "feedback" if you can to assure that RG staff sees this subject that actually has a good feedback role.
6) I propose to young scientist to include in their Curriculum Vitae (CV) the RG score. It will not hurt. Perhaps will raise question such as "what it is", creating the opportunity for an answer. ResearchGate activity is great for the scientific community (all members, young and old) and for society at large.
Regards,
Adrian TW
Yes in did Jana,
asking questions means also an invitation to dialog, verification of thoughts, debate. Where is a question, there are many answers. Everybody is learning, all the participants. This is one of the main purpose of ResearchGate.
Sir,
Possible reasons (just for fun!):
1. Not comfortable with technology (internet/ forum)
2. Intellectual bankruptcy and fear of its exposure; Don't want to be too
adventurous and face tough questions from others, esp. youngsters; Fear of loss
of reputation if can't make good impression on others
4. "Everything is useless other than my research topic" - kind of attitude
5. "There is no obvious profit in such activities, better spend time on
sycophancy" - kind of approach to success
6. "People should come to me for my expert advice, I don't believe in sharing
ideas" - kind of approach
7. Problem with English language
8. Problem of remembering too many passwords!
Cheers,
shenoy
I think it might also be discipline-specific. I find quite a few senior researchers from my research field who are on RG and it has helped me stay connected with their latest research. It also makes them more approachable even though we might not meet face-to-face for a few years :)
As for the number of students being high. I think we are at a stage where we spend a lot of time online socializing via different platforms be it Fb or RG.. we only stand to gain from the discussions on any of these platforms. So, I guess its no surprise that the numbers are higher.
Most of the answers seem to imply negative assessments of senior researchers. They are 'not comfortable' with newer technology (many of them actually invent newer technology). They are too busy, afraid of being exposed as intellectually depleted, etc. etc. Very strange. No one seems to consider an alternative explanation: that more accomplished, senior researchers simply do not find the site to be of significant value. The implicit thread throughout the discussion above is 'what's wrong with senior researchers.' Perhaps an alternative thread might be 'what's wrong with ResearchGate?' Most senior researchers, in my experience, are bright, interested in colleagues and students, nimble at adopting new technologies. I think this thread is creating a mythical, stereotyped 'senior researcher'. A more valuable exercise might be, rather than 'what's wrong with those people that don't use this site', how the site would have to change in order to be viewed as a valuable activity by those who are most accomplished and established. The failure of senior scientists to endorse the site, in my estimation, is an implicit criticism and failure of the site, not the other way around.
I would also like to comment on one point above about a 'generation that grew up sharing information.' Senior scientists share information all the time, with colleagues, training students, conferences, papers, email, phone, meetings. I have observed absolutely nothing here that is novel and not already part of scientific communication. I see questions on method, which are better answered by a little research and looking through the literature rather than a lazy quick answer here, which leaves one with the problem of evaluating the information received. I have observed absurdly broad, speculative threads, the sort of thing scientists often engage in at conferences over beer. In general, the idea that this is somehow a generation that, thanks to social networking, now communicates while previous generations were somehow locked into solipsistic non-communication, seems misplaced. This is merely a different vehicle for communication. Whether it is actually better or not remains to be determined. Interestingly, there have been, I believe, some studies of facebook that seem to suggest that facebook actually decreases real social interaction and communication. Perhaps the same will be true here. To assume that users of RG are communicative and non-users are non-communicative is to confuse participation in one commercial site with scientific communication generally. The two are clearly not interchangeable. Time on RG may, actually, reflect POOR communication, not better. This may explain why it is not being adopted by more senior, established scientists.
It is quite possible that "senior researchers simply do not find the site to be of significant value".
I think it is important to reflect on the frequent analogy between RG site and Facebook. Facebook, though it certainly offers benefits (the event invites, keeping track of old friends, on and on), has made itself commercially valuable by achieving a virtual monopoly on internet based social networking (try saying to investors, 'hey, I want to start a new Facebook'). Now that Facebook has that virtual monopoly, user generated content, information and networks have vast commercial value (billions) as a vehicle for marketing. In a sense, as many have pointed out, facebook turns your personal social life into a marketing tool. If an individual doesn't care that they are offering up their internet social interactions as a vehicle for marketing, fine.
RG is obviously adopting the same strategy and attempting to make scientific communication, via their private/commercial platform, a virtual monopoly. In doing so they achieve high commercial value the same way as facebook. It may appear as a service initially, but when it gains so many users that it no longer becomes a choice (ie., like Facebook, join or be left out), then modes of communication in the scientific community may actually become overly shaped and constrained by one large, behemoth social networking platform, impoverishing rather than expanding scientific communication. The extent to which the operation of such a site is guided by commercial value and profit vs. the betterment of scientific inquiry would not be clear. However, as a private, investor based commercial entity, the bottom line is likely to cast the deciding vote. The site, in my estimation, has thus far exhibited characteristics more in keeping with financial interests than the furthering of scientific communication. Just as with television, the medium is the message. Senior researchers may be right to eschew RG. I for one am not sure I really want a 'Facebook of science.' I am skeptical of its real value and feel it exploits 'user content'-- which in this case is the generation of scientific knowledge and discussion-- for commercial value while contributing effectively nothing except a software platform (a surprisingly inadequate one at that). Were it to achieve the status of facebook, I am not sure whether more would be gained or lost as its sheer size might impede the development of other, alternative and less centralized methods for implementing a so-called Science 2.0. It's one thing if individuals on Facebook want to offer up their personal and social lives as vehicles for marketing and commercial value. I am not sure I think it is a good idea to do the same thing with scientific discourse.
Maybe if ResearchGate gave users the tools to more easily collaborate, such as integrating Google services and GitHub, then it would be used more by senior researchers. This seems to be outside of the scope of ResearchGate though.
I am sorry for the double post. I received error from the net and I pasted the message again.
In my openion, The number of youngsters using RG may be superior but I think there are leading researchers who may connect through RG. Among above mentioned opinions; I think young researchers are at a stage where they can spend a lot of time online socializing via different platforms be it Facebook or ResearchGate or some other.. they only stand to gain from the discussions on any of these platforms. So, No need to get surprise regarding the same. To the senior researchers or science leaders or well known researchers in their field , adding one more to the list of their connections may be adding additional burdon of extra time. Any how i hope this present situation will change and hope RG will be with more science leaders and leading scientists.
Senior researchers will often not find the time to extensively engage in ResearchGate and other networking media. Further, they tend to already have very good networks.
Dear all, sharing of information is done for more specific reasons.
Social networking, and use of it by youngsters, and senior researches not familiar with technology may be to some extent true since technology has not been made accessible to all sections of researches.
High cost of gadgets, and frequent maintenance of the system, with so called youngsters, unable to manage minor goof ups with system and recommending replacements lead to high cost of equipment.
Research requires a high volume of transfer of files or information and frequent interactions with senior and or junior colleges.
To say that seniors are not familiar with technology is not acceptable.
Since the transition of technology is always slow and adaptations are made to suit the more frequent user.
I rather would say that youngsters are using technology more frequently hence familiar with it.
Sir, Hans, I do agree that many questions are poor, but remember most of the users are expressing their views and ideas so that they can get in touch with some peoople like you, as a doctor i had the opportunity to know much information regarding illustrations, interacted with some PhD doctors, was ridiculed for my answers, i did my home work and im sure i have had some good benefit, these days youngsters dont have the commitment to be perfect but prefer to stay connected and they think it is the world, which is not the case.Users must give respect for the person who has answered the question and must follow the minimum courtesy of saying thank you.
Most of the users of Research Gate seems to be the researchers in different disciplines. I think that educationists and eminent Professors also use Research Gate.
Hi All- there is no reason for us to speculate about and guess who the users of ResearchGate are. RG has that data. RG can tell us the exact numbers of daily, weekly and monthly average users, the frequency and extent of their activity on the site as well as a breakdown of what activities typically engage users. They can then provide descriptive statistical characterization of these different patterns of use, for example correlating degree and nature of participation on RG with discipline, # publications, position and so on. RG has a wealth of data about its users. In fact, it is precisely this data that will allow them to monetize the value of RG in the future, ie., for example in terms of marketing. It may not be in the best interest of RG to be transparent with this data. For example, if, as Hans-Peter suggests, the activity on this site reflects more of a student advisory forum rather than a broad-based social media platform for the scientific community, it may be considerably less valuable commercially as students are typically not the ones with funding that direct purchasing, and probably not the primary targets of advertising.
I believe RG should be transparent and release such user statistics. The value of this site is derived from us, the users. If a potential large investor asked RG for these statistics, I can only imagine they would provide them. We are investors, investing our time and content. Without us, RG is an empty, worthless platform and its investors have thrown money away. The value derives entirely and solely from our participation and content. It is entirely reasonable for us to ask, as investors would, for a detailed description of the community to which we might commit both time, traffic and content. A lack of such transparency, in my mind, suggests an intentional strategy on the part of RG to obscure the details its actual user base.
@Darren, such platforms may be especially useful to students and young investigators who may not have the funding to go to meetings and conferences very often. I think social media platforms could be an invaluable contribution to the scientific community. I am just not sure RG is or should be that platform. I would welcome competitive alternatives, particularly by a non-profit coalition of stakeholders within the scientific community, including students, faculty, teachers, industry, NIH/NSF, publishers and companies that provide services and products to the scientific community where the focus is a collaborative social media platform aimed to further science without the complication of having to please first and foremost investors potentially placing profit above scientific betterment.
ResearchGate isn't necessarily what it's marketing and corporate comms. claim it to be. Jeff Beeler is right, simply to generate the RG Score, RG have to collate and process data about RG users. They know who their users are. My point would be that I haven't seen an alternative to RG - except Mendeley - that allows so many people to communicate across geographical, disciplinary and cultural boundaries. It may be that concrete examples of collaboration are hard to find, however, I do believe there are benefits in developing new channels of communication and the more the better.
@Matt I agree that new channels of communication, particularly social media platforms, could be a boon to the scientific community. I would like to see a viable competitor to RG before they become so large that, like Facebook, it is very difficult to obtain any capital to mount a competing enterprise, at which point we are essentially stuck with them. RG, in my estimation, is not being run by or for scientists at all but instead being run by a group of high profile tech investors who come from Facebook, LinkedIn and Paypal who are adopting the same strategies that grew those companies into the large, highly valuable near-monopolies that they are. The lack of transparency on the part of RG (no explanation of how RG score really calculated, will not reveal the amount of funding they have raised in two rounds, will not discuss monetization plans, will not adequately describe user base/characteristics) is consistent with a company that is operating largely on hype with little substance. Their strategy seems simple: grow the user base and user generated content by making it seem that if you are not on RG you will be somehow left out and 'behind the times' (eg., the idea that the RG score might be included on CVs, though I see this as absurd). Get people to publish or 'self-archive' their papers to create a vast repository of free scientific papers, vastly increasing traffic and value of RG to the detriment of publishers. Hype the vast numbers of users but downplay any measurement of their actual participation. If established researchers aren't participating, make this a false generational issue: 'those oldies just don't get it' (again, in my view absurd, we are not talking about octogenarian factory workers, but scientists, established scientists that invent things like nanotechnology, programming languages, some of who will win nobel prizes. They can figure out and use, and often do use, social networking platforms if they believe they are of value).
I see nothing wrong with a for-profit platform nor with investors obtaining a return on their investments, provided they offer a valuable product. I think RG is offering a lot of hype and using questionable tactics (don't forget the email spam) to attempt to corner the market on scientific social networking. I think RG should either become more responsive to users (I for one find the Facebook 'rolling out' 'you're gonna like this' approach somewhat condescending and, generally, wrong).or we, the users, should stop providing value to their site, ie., ourselves, our content and our participation, leaving the door open for a better social network platform.
Just a few thoughts after having read through this thread:
First, instead of asking "Who are the users ..." it would be better to ask "What can it be useful for?". Answers then could be, for example: certainly not as another platform for "chatting" or "personal advertising", but rather as one for the sharing and critical discussion of ideas, knowledge and information relating to scientific issues.
Second, the scientific level and quality can be raised by the contributions that are posted. Like on any platform, and similar to the issues scientific conferences are facing, there is a lot of unnecessary postings. A way of dealing with those is: ignore them.
Third, scientific or research discourse is a different thing than social networking. Everyone can keep this difference by carefully controlling what to post and how to do that.
Basically, there is nothing wrong with upcoming or unestablished researchers being active here. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with well-established or incumbent researchers keeping away. The role model should be quality only.
@Hans-Peter, I would add that not only interdisciplinary, but also more speculative, broader discussions that promote new, different thinking and exploration might be ideally suited for this sort of forum, especially with the potential of interdisciplinary perspectives on broader topics and questions.
I believe that the number of youngsters using RG can be superior that seniors researchers. Maybe the last researchers don't have time, or they don't like to use some technologies like social networks. I believe that some senior researchers don't believe in these foruns, for the "poor of the questions", or because they don't like of socializing in different platforms with unknown person.
The young scientists are generally more familiar with social networks. They tend to share information with unknown people more easily. They need to share opinions.
But, this can not be seen as a rule. Obviously in RG have also experienced researchers.
They... We need to share knowledge and doubts, since we are in a learning phase, although this phase does not end with the experience. Doubts tend to modify. Solidified knowledge is a sign of arrogance, and ignorance also.
I just wanted to add that in press interviews covering the introduction of the RG Score Ijad Madisch, one of the founders of RG, said, that most of the RG users are between 27 to 33 years old. And the older generation uses RG in a completely different way than the younger ones. The older ones use it as some kind of open CV with publications and more. The younger ones discuss and chat and ask for help when they have problems in their research.
The original source is in German. http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/digital/researchgate-rg-score-1.17536449
@Beatrice that description is consistent with an earlier comment that likened RG more to a forum for students than to a broad-based forum for scientific exchange and communication.
@Jeff not only. Some of the Thirties of today might become stakeholders and this might change science collaborations, interactions, communications further more.
From what I have seen the population shifts from time to time. At first about 50% of the people following me were social scientists, and sociologists, Then a greater number became philosophers, finally I have been getting an eclectic mix. I think that the 30 something statistic is not as indicative as you might think, since except for some small cabals that are working together, and some die-hards like myself that have been here since forever most users are not long-term investors of their time. I think a little soul searching on the part of RG is needed. Constantly changing the format doesn't really impress people, the way a designed format would, and it seems they are constantly tweeking the interface and incidentally increasing the load on the subscribers computers by using more and more sophisticated Javascript, instead of keeping the function on the servers. That strategy has knocked me off the board a number of times until I managed to strip down my computer to an even simpler interface so that there was more memory for Javascript.
One thing that the constant flux in interface has made virtually impossible is the finding of a thread so that you can continue to post in it, even after others have quit updating it, or you missed the update because the system doesn't send update messages unless you constantly respond to them. I appreciate the reduction in spam, but still have to constantly scramble to check the more popular threads.
@Ana María Sánchez Peralta
It may be due to fact that more men in research than women, similarly more men on researchgate than women.
Is very easy to know percentage of men and women targeted, and percentage of men and women in chat.
I think there is a difference in the way we argue. We can feel violence where is not. You are more competitive in your words, and women don't like violent situations. (I think). (An explain is chromosome Y, we haven't)...
@Ana, I am unable to understand your message, what exactly you wish to convey. It will be grate if you write your message in detail.
I was time ago in a science chat in Spain, here is about the same number of men and women in University, and I look the same. Little number of women. I think we talk different.
About chromosome Y, this have many information about violence. This make more incisive and competitive attitude, but is normally in men.
Problems like XYY, or XYYY men normally make problems of violence. (Many of this men are in prisons for problems with authority).
Women normally have another attitude and I think they (we) must learn to talk with men without sensation of test. (My father is very strong and I love him and I have not problem with this). In write words we cannot look us and we can interpret wrong.
Gajendra Ana is Yoda-izing English probably because it is her second language.
My guess is she is trying to use a Spanish phraseology with English, and it detracts from her meaning. I think she is saying that women feel men are too violent, and read violence into even scientific discussions. She has some theory that it is related to the Y chromasome. But she acknowledges that women might just be being too sensitive and seeing violence where none is meant.
I thought All those who want to harness/ search knowledge.
Present as well as budding researchers.
all the stakeholders of researchers, because I saw the students, professors, analyst, consultants, freelance/ Independent researchers as well people representing industries are using RG.
All the variables dependent as well as Independent.....
Have anybody talk to researchers who never used researchgate and not interested in researchgate, I mean view of non RG member views on RG. Why they are not interested in RG, this is important to understand negative side of RG.
Gajendra, I waited a long time before using Resarchgate, because I thought it would be a waste of time. Besides, I'm not much -or should I say not at all- in social networks, as I don't wish my privacy to be exposed. Fo the same reason, I didn't try LinkedIn, for isntance. Yet, I finally decided that it would not hurt trying, in order to get my own opinion. Now that I have tested it, I believe that it's like many tools internet-based: it is potenailly very powerful, you can exchange ideas with other scientists involved in the same domain as yours, you can read the best or the worst , but youjust have to pick only what matters to you. Yet, it might definitively be very time-consuming, and I can understand very busy researchers who probably wonder what is the point to use RG.
They're too busy to answer silly doubts that people tend to ask rather than searching for the answer themselves..
@Ana,"variables are always nice".I totally agree, they are also most powerful:
"The most powerful single idea in mathematics is the notion of a variable." (Alexander Keewatin Dewdney, 1941–, Canadian, computer scientist, mathematician, and philosopher.)
"Constants aren't, variables won't".
From Arthur Bloch's book "Murphy's Law and other reasons why things go wrong" :-)
Constants aren't difficult, variables won't make things go wrong... I suppose!
As it is well known, Murphy's Law and similars are humorous pesimistic expressions about things that go wrong unexpectedly.
Another sample, from Biology: "In given and controlled conditions of temperature, humidity, etc, the organism will do as well damn it pleases". i.e. everything except what it was expected to do.
Anyway, I think we're drifting out of subject and context. ( but a little laughs doesn't hurt, no? :- )
In genetic, for example if the DNA change so much (many variables) can remove, but if the changes are little, this make the advantage in survival (to environmental changes for example).
What was the question, anyway? Who are the users of RG?
Well, right now it should be clear that we are sane, nice, kind, knowledgeable people with a fine sense of humour willing to share opinions, experience and even jokes. No?
RG attracts whom it wishes to attract. There is an active forum now about why nursing is not listed as a discipline here (it is an area of interest.) Admins, when questioned, replied that disciplines do not matter anyway, so stop worrying about it - a virtual pat on the head. So some are excluded, and RG is okay with that.
Not sure this explains why all the highly-funded, widely-published are not here, but I think we've already answered that anyway (in particular, Adrian T-W.)
Most of the RG users are scientific community peoples like,students, Researchers,and teachers
I had noticed that disciplines had become a tagging exercise (Only 5 allowed) rather than a heading, but thought that had been because I started voting down off topic questions.
I think that part of the problem is that the voting mechanism is too high on the page in publications. It sits right under the Introductory blurb rather than underneath the abstract. As such, it isn't in the natural flow of reading/downloading publications, and gets missed. It's there but you have to look for it. As well, why aren't the downloading mechanisms monitored?
The emphasis on voting, while fine in judging the relative amusement factor of someone's post about their breakfast on facebook, seems peculiar for the evaluation of scientific contributions. Science needs to be critically discussed by knowledgeable people, the discussion itself being an important component of scientific discourse and progress. Counting thumbs up/down trivializes critical scientific evaluation and replaces valuable dialogue with mindless popularity scores. To the extent that such stupid, misplaced pseudo-democracy is taken as meaningful, science will be impoverished.
I don't think that including one's RG score is either valid or widely understood enough. Until (unless) RG demonstrates itself to be a valid source of peer recognition, I wouldn't dream of putting my score on my c.v. My resolve not to use the RG score is strengthened by the exclusion of my discipline from the RG list.
Yes I think that the staff need to take a second look at how they are trying to trivialize science with their gaming response behavior. By making everything a question or a share, they are missing the debate, which negative or positive makes up the bulk of the responses, or assuming that it has less place than trivial answers to the question.
In real science the debate has more relevance than the question, or the statement shared at the start of the thread, except where the answers trivialize the question.
One reason why I think they moved too far from topics too quickly is that now every posting can have up to 5 separate topics, and no advancement is possible on a single topic because the topics themselves are trivialized to tags.
@ Teresa Goodell , please include your discipline in RG as well, why not ?!
We are all guessing how RG score is calculated. This question is raised number of times but nobody write how score are computed. Due to lack of transparency, we are getting this question time by time. I do not know why RG team is not disclosing formula. Transparency in RG is very important to maintain its importance in researchers.
Interesting discussion and I too noticed how asking and answering questions gives you more RG points than your publications. The currency of science is publications and citations. Discussions are appreciated but you cannot show on a CV. All people don't spend same amount of time on RG site. RG score could have been (and still could be) a good altmetric but not by rewarding time spent on the site in forums etc. In my opinion it could reward publications more, and their citations(they can use google scholar for the metrics). Voting answers should come next in getting RG scores for the answerer and voters' RG score should be taken into account, somewhat similar to Elo ratings in Chess. If highly rated researcher votes u up, you gain more points on RG scale. These could be normalized by your years in research so as not to be too unfavorable for newcomers.
Agree with most of inputs on this thread, including hint that this is just a mass experiment set up by RG conceptors (with ultimate business profit in their mind). Their clever trick is to pretend that the RG Score does reflect 'scientific reputation', which in turn will incite many participants to try to figure our their 'weird' metrics. I write 'weird' on purpose because nobody (on any selection or Faculty committee) should consider that Index seriously, not even for a minute. I did some rapid random checks and found that a 'scientist' can receive a RG score of 17.68 with only 1 Question, 0 Answer, 2 Followers ... and 0 publication. Whereas in the very same same 17.5_ 18 range (i.e., scoring higher than 97% of all RG 'members') you can find a real researcher with 26 Articles + Books, 2 Questions, 56 Answers and 60 Followers. Funny manipulation, no? So this score, at this moment means strictly nothing serious. The point of participating in RG is therefore NOT to get a meaningless high Score per se, but to share in some discussions with the young (and not so young) scientists which you will find, like myself, enriching and stimulating.
@Susan Bachus:
Massive experiment? Hmmmmm... You made an interesting point there... If we're able to figure it out, we really are good researchers! :-)
Seriously (?), I agree on the due relevance of publications, be it an academic terribly serious paper or just some hundreds words describing work done, being done or proposed, just for the sake of sharing it.
RG score rises faster if one asks a simple and interesting questions, to which most peers can comfortatbly react. Thus, it can be a credit for promotions to science-popularization positions.
For all persons have RG score more than 25, it is giving Your score is higher than 97.5% of ResearchGate members. I have not got any person on RG who have more than 97.5%, even some researchers have RG score more than 100.
I think you have impact factor for evaluate your publication but RG like scientific network pay attention on your communication to the scientific persons, that's why it RG score mostly depends on question-answer type.
Users of RG:
Young and old, professionals, researchers and students, smart, creative and people with lots of imagination.
@Ana María Sánchez Peralta nobody or everybody are intelligent in this universe in their own field. we often said that scientists are only intelligent people, in my point of view this is wrong. Though I am not belonging in the intelligent group but my practical experience said that you cant believe, intelligence are common people and also in pets.
I think here are all intelligent people, that use the scientific method to explain his/her ideas and knowledge. I think a good idea don´t need to be in the best brain, only need a clear idea in a good moment, normally about a particularity we know.
I would offer another angle on that, having read with much interest this morning [in The Wall Street Journal Tech Europe', dated 8 October], an enlighting interview of the bright conceptor of the RG site openly reflecting his temptation/ ambition to make RG the "Facebook of scientists". Umm ... but why not after all?
As we all know, Facebook is particularly tuned to the legitimate tastes and needs of adolescents. At the same time RG has many cool features that should be attractive to both young and senior scientists. Perhaps the older generation has a sense of being guinea pigs of an undefined business venture (if it is free for us, then we are the product), since too much opacity remains over RG metrics and ulterior motives.
I much enjoy the exchanges over the 'Gate' but see a real need to make RG robust to outside criticsm by improving its usefulness, as well as overall credibility.
As a start, what about asking the RG team to provide us with :
• synthetic graphics and geographic maps allowing rapid comparison of RG activity and representativity / strength in different disciplines and regions of the globe?
• a simple, transparent metrics based on a far better balance between research impact and RG blog activity. That would stop this confusion (annoying for most senior researchers) between measuring social chatter instead of scientific reputation
All the experties were once the beginner. All the RG people were once known by no one.
Dear participating members,
Should we also include as "users" of the ResearchGate (RG) the RG staff? The owners ? The financial holders / interest ? Yes we should do that, obviously. Observing ! Statistics !
What about security services as to see who is who ? Media ? yes they do, I assume, why not. Is anything wrong with that? I believe it is not since all we do here is to convey our message, knowledge, opinion, know-how more as voluntary work ( lots of work I should and we know that very well with no direct pay-back) .
Who gains due to all this RG activity? ALL OF US. Do you agree ? All our contribution takes place with the believe that we can all participate making this world a better place. Don't we ? Please comment if you don't mind me addressing it this way.
My regards and consideration to all RG participating members,
Dr. Adrian TW
I agree that all of us gain benefit from the RG activity, nomatter the benefit will be low or high or nothing much. It depends how RG people are determined to keep it in a nice way or not, lasting long or not. And we should have no worry about the media or else. I am quite a new user of the RG, But I've noticed that the languages in RG are the languages of science, polite, compromise, declare obviously and so on.
For me this site is a valuable site for scientific conversation which may be missed in real life
The facebook for scientists.... Why not after all....
It's all about HOW that is done, if the work looks good but doesn't respect the scientific discussion, then it trivializes it. Honest hard working scientists begin to look like they are merely playing with the "Latest Fad" instead of working. Conversation stays at the surface level and never digs deep into possible theory, never achieves any goals. If that is what you want, empty rhetoric, then there is nothing wrong with it.
But if you want more, it is becoming harder and harder to find it here. It is my contention that scientists do not have the time for empty rhetoric, and are looking for something a little meatier, but that may be my particular slant on it.
There are 2 groups of these RG scientists One, they achieve something, and they want to help others to get start. Two, someones who want to start , of course, after all surface or deep conversation, they have to think and dig into a hole themselves.
Knowledge needs review, and to maintenance. This is a good way for it.
Many times to talk about this special topics you cannot make in your house, because your family haven´t the same study.
I think it´s a nice new method to express our concerns we can´t with others nearest.
Psychologycally it´s positive.
I think the two categories are not mutally exclusive. One may have experience (even expertise) in a certain field, but may begin new research and becomes a "youngster" in the new activity needing the help and advice of others. I think it is worth to follow those few topics, which are interesting for someone and to give advice in toher fields wher he/she feels to be able to do that.
@Graeme Smith
I feel RG experiment is beginning it has to evolve and its direction depends upon members of RG. It is also possible that expert like you find no depth in questions and answers. I find useful, whenever I ask right question, I got right answer. It depend upon users also what question they are asking in which categories. Due to limitted researchers in each category, we are asking common questions rather than specific question this is the reason we are getting answers at surface.
I agree with Gyorgy that some time experts may ask basic question and got appropriate answers. Important is what we wants from RG accordingly we may ask and follow topics.
I agree with Gajendra, RG is an experiment, and as with all experiments it needs a lot of fine tuning, adjustments and calibrations. The responsibility of making this a successful platform lies not only with RG but also with RG users.
I agree with Adrian, But there is one thing, RG and answering questions and dealing with responses takes time!. the time that many researchers do not have. That's why form many outstanding researchers that I know they are in RG, most of them do not participate in any discussion. They find former ways of transporting knowledge more convenient! some do not see any benefit from devoting time on RG. But for beginners like me.... it is awesome. It is researchers facebook!
Dear Hadi Hezaveh , as you said : "some do not see any benefit from devoting time on RG"... I am sure you referring to "Direct benefit".
Participating in social discussions, especially such social groups, ( science if I may) the benefits are hidden . The society at large gains and there is basically no measure for it it is just a feeling or let's call it karma ?
The RG score perhaps tends to reflect "some applause" but that is not all. The real contribution is deeply hidden within our further works, actions in Life, behavior one to each other not only here , virtually, but in real Life as well.
In my view this platform is not for simple learning where you ask question and expect somebody will devote time and will give answer to your question, it is possible but not always. Ideally user should try to learn from existing internet resources like wikipedia, google, pubmed or research gate existing answers, there is no alternate to self-learning.
Before asking any question RG user should search existing resources, we should only asks the question whoes answer is not available in existing resources or unable to understand, like confusion in understanding a topic, suggestions or unusual questions.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Scientific Research