*****  To join INSNA, visit  *****

Interesting, Mark.

My gut told that their score seemed very similar to what was already out there, they were not using much(if any?) of the online behavior data they had access to in calculating their score. Maybe they were afraid to be "too different" from the established norm? They should probably focus on a “local score” that reflects behavior on their site and their site alone.  Could still be very useful.  The online world, routing around the journals of old(their own damn fault for isolating themselves in a connected world), will introduce many changes and SOMEONE needs to be the Google to the existing world of Alta Vistas, and Yahoos.  ;-)


> On Jan 12, 2016, at 6:07 PM, Mark C. Wilson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The RG score is very opaque and not very useful, it seems. See
> "According to ResearchGate, the academic social networking site, their RG Score is “a new way to measure your scientific reputation”. With such high aims, Peter Kraker, Katy Jordan and Elisabeth Lex take a closer look at the opaque metric. By reverse engineering the score, they find that a significant weight is linked to ‘impact points’ – a similar metric to the widely discredited journal impact factor. Transparency in metrics is the only way scholarly measures can be put into context and the only way biases – which are inherent in all socially created metrics – can be uncovered."
> Dr Mark C. Wilson || Department of Computer Science, University of Auckland ||	303.588 ||	 86643
>  || Centre for Mathematical Social Sciences:
> Academic Editor, PeerJ Computer Science || Editor, NZ Math Society Newsletter
> Please don't send me Microsoft Office attachments - see
> I'm boycotting Elsevier - see

SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers ( To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.