The research score on this site is a typical example of a (in this case public) performance measure of researchers. It might be compared to classical measures of scientific impact, such as the H-index (http:// http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index). Complementing the question ‘Is it positive for ResearchGate to use a visible performance index to qualify all researcher participants?’ - which is discussed here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_positive_for_ResearchGate_to_use_a_visible_performance_index_to_qualify_all_researcher_participants - I would like to know if you could imagine that such measures substitute more classical performance indicators, which have also been criticized since their introduction. Would this be a logical implication of Science 2.0?
ksma?nn%ewjix192716 ->This post actually increase my RG Score (increase it even more if someone will vote it up :) ). So big NO.
Sorry Sven, in this case no substitution is allowed. At least not a substitution with RG. Statement that “The RG Score takes all your research and turns it into a source of reputation” is quite a misleading one. As was already told in a parallel discussion, RG score is just reflection of activity on RG site. So far – nothing really promising for research community. My recommendation for owner of the site is to correct the definition of RG, to accept it is measure of site activity, not of the scientific reputation. And again, as I see it very high RG score reflects just amount of time spent on the site, not on meaningful research. Building high RG score is an easy task, does not require good research skills, just determination and free time to spend on the site.
ksma?nn%ewjix192716 ->This post actually increase my RG Score (increase it even more if someone will vote it up :) ). So big NO.
Thanks for your replies. This is quite what I expected (hoped for), very good that nobody bought into this ;-)
Yes, I had the same feeling when it was first introduced. I was close to deleting my account. Seeing it now as a mechanism for 'motivating' people, I personally do not mind very much any more.
Right. First of all, that person would loose credibility and second - if somebody is really up to improve his/her RS score - any comment can also be 'down voted', i.e. the community has in some sense the power to prevent such actions. We should not worry to much about this one....
Has anyone's views on this changed after last week's recalculation of the RG score? Suddenly, the publications have been given a fairly substantial weight, I think my RG score jumped from about 15 to >70.
If a score is meant to have anything to do with scientific track record, weighing in publications is in my mind a step in the right direction, but the handling of the publication record on RG is still very deficient and I therefore still think that the RG score is basically a joke, mostly there to keep us occupied discussing it ;-)
You might not have noticed my heated arguments with RG regarding this matter; RG deleted my comments, but the persistence paid off and they revisited the scoring system. Therefore, this experience once again was a reminder that we should voice our concerns in a constructive manner and try to improve the flaws in the system if the system has otherwise potential to be of benefit. I anticipate that RG will continue fine-tuning their system. The RG score appears to be a combination of productivity + academic citizenship and participation. In that regard, most US institutions use a complex scoring system for the annual review of their faculty. This is an evolving field and reputation or productivity can only be measured by using multi-scale bioinformatics tools. I suggest that you send your suggestions to RG and perhaps establish as a project a scoring system initiative and share your collective comments with RG.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Higher Education