Hi Jürg,

I wouldn't take it personally. There are many other ResearchGate projects with the title "Quantum Theory", curated and maintained by different individuals and teams. The fact that this group's "quantum theory" project is not attempting to be a definitive record of everybody else's relevant work on quantum theory is indicated by the fact that their project is flagged as being an "archived" record of a project that is now over.

Quantum theory itself is obviously not a finished project! :)

The way that ResearchGate is organised is slightly fluid and sometimes frustrating and confusing – they're trying to find new ways of organising and presenting information, and to a certain extent the site's organisation is "experimental" and depends on self-identified individuals and self-declared research teams inputting their own information so that larger patterns can then emerge, later. If you and your colleagues wanted to create your own "Quantum Theory" project on RG, listing your own research, then hopefully if there's a lot of crossover between the projects (such a similar pattern of citations) a future version of RG may be able to associate and connect the two RG projects, and automatically suggest that readers and followers of one project may like to investigate the other.

I think this is potentially going to be one of the most powerful future features of ResearchGate – the ability of isolated teams and individuals to discover each other (and each others' work) and connect in ways that they haven't always been doing in the past.

The researchers in question are all colleagues whom I know well and who know me well. RG is promoting the formation of clans and sects. It publishes really awful blogs with crazy contributions by totally unqualified people. I fear that, so far, it has not served any useful purpose - besides stealing time from more useful occupations.

Dear Juerg, This is more of a comment than an answer, of course. I see your point, yet, I also see potential value in this type of experiment in other areas. For example, there are many groups or individuals who work on similar questions in mathematical biology. Not infrequently, because interdisciplinary science is avoided by the major journal - albeit everybody plays lip-service about how important it is to work across disciplines -, results are found only by lucky coincidence. If a large project would keep track of this work, and individuals would deposit their work on ResearchGate, then, I think, everybody could benefit from, or improve on, everybody else's achievements. I am pointing this out, because this was exactly the topic of a special invitation-only workshop at NIH - a government-led search for a venue to cross-stimulate scientists' collaborations. Finally, coming to the end of my message, I should think that an effort like this started by ResearchGate, where we all can see and appreciate each others thoughts, would simply be marvelous and save - at least me - quite some time. My very best, Hans

I think the word "project" must be taken in its primitive meaning. RG is a social network for researchers. Often, researchers are doing research project, that is, they plan to investigate some problem with such and such technique, and from such and such idea. On RG, a "project" is a single place where collaboration can be organised among the participants of the project. There is also a list of references that may be useful for the investigation. Then, it is up to the individuals, if they wish, to ask for partaking in the project, or to bring commentaries and references. From this description, I don't see how they are more sects or clans than usual collaborations that are in general not so public, or how they can steal some deserved prestige to those who think they are the exclusive owners of it. In any case, a problem doesn't belong to anybody, only its solutions do.

The purpose of the "project" feature is obvious in the Research 2.0. Before, information on a topic was gathered in journals, that is, when the research was completed and often already closed. Only members of "sects" and "clans" had privileged access to strategic information. Now it is possible to watch research in its doing, which has an interest both for history of science, and also for those who are excluded from "sects" and "clans," and thus can jump in the bandwagon before it reaches its destination

Jürg:

" The researchers in question are all colleagues whom I know well and who know me well. "

... Then you are already a member of a clan or sect whose collective work you feel deserves more promotion.

Good news! You can agree with your colleagues to create a project or set of projects on RG focused on questions that you are all collectively trying to answer, and use the project pages to showcase your relevant research and provide updates on how the work is progressing.

The project page(s) can create a broader overview of how the works fit together, and this might then bring the whole body of work to the attention of other researchers and other similar groups, who (if they consider it sufficiently significant) may then start citing it.

If you feel that the work of you and your colleagues has been unfairly neglected, then this is your chance to do something about it.

To Eric Baird: You appear to miss the point! -- And, by the way, this matter is not worth further discussions. I found it strange that there is a project in an area of science which I think I have contributed to, but that I only heard about it very recently. I guess this really is quite strange. Period.

Jürg, I suggest you ask this question to your "colleagues whom you know well and who know you well." I don't think RG should interfere in personal relationship. If really your colleagues wanted to shun you, without RG you wouldn't even be aware of it.

I think we have now discussed this matter in sufficient detail. It is better to stop this, (although one could say much more about the problematic impact of networks such as ResearchGate). I wish everybody a successful and enjoyable 2018!

Dear Mr. Fröhlich,

I am very happy to meet you. My earlier mentor, András Csordás would not like to go on my project and my professor, prof. Péter Szépfalusy is not alive yet. So I make this project alone. I would be very honored, if you as proficient expert were comment on my first own publication or preprint and gave me some advices if it will be ready.

Best regards

Éva Szőke