User talk:Neurodavid2014

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Neurodavid2014, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Anatomy. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! benmoore 11:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

ResearchGate[edit]

Hi, please stop insulting me: "You have applied no such rigor on any other aspect of the article. No wiki reader will understand the terms you use". I consider it an insult if you claim (without proving this) that I applied less rigor to other sources. Because I have applied the same rigor to the other sources as well; I actually looked at the article, not only the abstract (which is advertising, for the article).

If you'd bother to check the article, you would realize that "effective indicator" is a gross overstatement of what they observed. They observed a strong correlation with another rather simple statistic; the same thing the other studies already observed: RGScore apparently is largely a simple aggregate of the impact factor of the journals where something was published. The conclusion attempted by the authors of that study is overstated - this does not at all imply this score is a good choice ("effective indicator") for much. At the same time, they observed very weak correlations only with much better metrics. But that makes a worse abstract for their paper, of course...

But the problem is that you want to advertise for ResearchGate. You appear to have a WP:Conflict of Interest. Are you in any way affiliated or paid by ResearchGate? Or do you simply have a good RG score, and are now disappointed that others consider this score to be rather meaningless?

You should also read the other sources. In particular: Kraker, P., & Lex, E. A Critical Look at the ResearchGate Score as a Measure of Scientific Reputation. Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web (ASCW'15); Jordan, Katy (2015). Exploring the ResearchGate score as an academic metric: Reflections and implications for practice. Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web (ASCW'15).; Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C., & Meckel, M. (2015). A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate as an indicator of scientific impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. - the correlation of the RG score is not new (they all observed it), and is not necessarily a good thing. The Yu, Min-Chun interpretation may be a rather naive view and analysis (the Spearman correlation is a better choice than Pearson correlation here; in particular because the relationship was previously found to be non-linear - and they did not realize that a high correlation is to be expected, and a correlation may even be high but below average as Thelwall and Kousha have observed...); and is only one of many sources that studied the RG score correlations. The Jordan source is probably the best, because she was able to explain like 95% of the RG score; mostly with the logarithm of the JIFs.

-- Chire (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chire

Hello,

I didn't mean to insult you but this was from the abstract. I see nothing wrong with using the authors own words. They say that it can be effective metric. Why are you more qualified to ascertain the intentions of the authors than they are themsevles? I'm not WP:Conflict of Interest because I'm using the authors own language. Neurodavid2014 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:Conflict of Interest is a different question than citing a source; it is a question of relationship to the subject.
Yes, you quote the abstract, but apparently without looking at the actual results. The abstract is a bad choice, because it contains speculative language "can be" says little more than "we did not prove differently". Sentences such as "Our results suggest RG score is an effective indicator at the individual level." are called weasel wording, and not a good choice for citing - because this does not at all contradict: "Other results suggest differently". In the full version, their claim is even weaker: "demonstrate that the ResearchGate score has potential as an alternative performance indicator for academic institutions'". And in fact, their experiments do not support a stronger conclusion, and contradict the findings of multiple other groups that worked more thoroughly. It is also not a general result: "In this research, only researchers in the discipline of supply chain management were sampled". So A) they only looked at a tiny subdomain B) they only evaluted institutions not researchers. It's a really questionable source that you found there, the others are much better. Chire (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)