Citations - Science topic

Dear Peter Oluwasegun Igunnu ,

thank you for your reply. Elsevier Harvard style is not the same as New carbon materials citation style, however the close match one is China National Standard GB/T 7714-2015 (numeric, 中文) with some additional manual adjustment.

Please note that you wrote to the ResearchGate community, not to the RG team. Please note also that the RG team does not compile bibliographic data manually, but these are imported from other sources automatically. You may claim authorship of this paper, see I’m having trouble confirming authorship of my publications in https://help.researchgate.net/hc/en-us/articles/14292798510993-Authorship for instructions.

See this related discussion:

See also these general discussions:

In today's world, scientific research plays a significant role. Researchers use various databases to search for information on a topic of interest, monitor the publications of colleagues and evaluate their own work. It is important to note that no single database is exhaustive. For the most comprehensive search results, it is recommended to use more than one database. Because Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed are the largest international databases, authors often wonder where the best place to publish an article is. It is impossible to answer this question accurately, as the systems, although similar, have differences, so the choice of platform for posting and searching information depends on many factors:

- If the author is looking for deep citation on certain sources and his work is analytical, it is better to turn to Web of Science.

- If the author is engaged in natural or exact science, it is better to use Web of Science and PubMed, and for humanities and if the research is related to forecasting it will be better to publish in Scopus.

Dear Jayashree Nagesh The main reason is that unfortunately your most cited publication got citations all wrongly linked to your book (click on citations (counted 10) at the indicated link and have a look yourself). The RG search engine/algorithm is wrong here (these citations do not belong to your book).

Best regards.

Thank you for answering, Chaitanya, but I am looking for the opposite case, when in the presence of an Inhibitor, the pitting i-hysteresis is reversed, making the repassivation potential higher than the pitting potential.

ResearchGate (like other platforms) identify citations by automated algorithms. It is not possible to add citations manually, and the staff would not have any capacity to do this. See also these previous discussions:

Here is a selection of the many discussions on this mentioned by Jürgen Weippert :

ResearchGate:

ResearchGate and Google Scholar:

Google Scholar:

Scopus:

Hello Kaiying Miao

Here is a link to an article on WC. It is quite general, I find, and does not exactly address your question but might give you further ideas on where to search for your answers further.

Dear Anitha

In my eyes, this is an accurate definition.

Perhaps, you can have a look at the following reference work: Ball, R. (2021). Handbook bibliometrics. De Gruyter Saur. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110646610.

Additionally, I would recommend to consider five other metrics, outlined in this paper: Zhao, H., & Wang, X. (2024). Research on interdisciplinarity of five-metrics in China based on Chinese Citation Data under the background of open science. Journal of Information Science, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515241263286. Best regards Anne-Katharina

Transferring your publication information from Google Scholar to ResearchGate can enhance the visibility of your work and its citations. Here's how you can proceed:

After importing, ResearchGate will process the data and display the publications on your profile. It's important to review these entries to ensure accuracy and completeness. Please note that while ResearchGate regularly imports citation data from various sources, some citations may not be immediately visible due to differences in indexing and data synchronization. For more detailed guidance, you can refer to ResearchGate's help center.

ResearchGate Help

I would also like to invite you to join Dailyplanet.Club, a platform dedicated to fostering collaboration among researchers and innovators.

Membership is £5 per year, supporting the development of this unique community. Visit Dailyplanet.Club to join and explore its offerings.

Looking forward to your participation!

Best regards,

James Henderson Mitchell

CEO, MJ HSA Ltd

Dear Divya Ganesan No access to Clarivate's website (at least not their content which requires license) but do find enclosed the latest JCR Report.

Best regards.

How can offering "compensation" for citations possibly be ethical?

ResearchGate identifies citations with the help of automated algorithms. There is not way to add missing citations "by hand", also not for the staff. See also these discussions:

I have also been confused for some time about this question. As far as I can work out, the ColE1 origin of replication is classified as "high-copy-number", but pET28 also expresses the Rop protein, which keeps the copy number low.

The wikipedia article on Rop is helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rop_protein

... and the associated citation has more details: Molecular Microbiology. 37 (3): 492–500. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2958.2000.02005.x

Cooperation between countries in the field of technological innovation becomes a key factor in their economic growth and strategic development. Being at the crossroads of geopolitical interests, Azerbaijan and Serbia are actively developing cooperation in various fields such as agriculture, defense and energy. These three sectors play an important role in the continued economic growth of both countries, and technological advances in these areas can help them integrate into global markets and improve their competitiveness. The purpose of this article is to review the technological achievements of Azerbaijan and Serbia in key sectors-agriculture, military and energy-and analyze their implications for strategic growth and strengthening of cooperation between the countries.

Dear Khalid Mohammed Breesem. I think impactful research is the most effective thing on RG. Because if you have a good paper, you will have more citations and higher research metrics! Best regards, Hamid.

Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do. See these discussions on missing citations in Researchgate (a very incomplete list - it is one of the most frequently asked questions here):

Dear Alisha Aziz one the most mistake is to dictate model nature to follow. How could nature follow our modeling?

We must observe nature not model it .

Unfortunately, I do not have such studies.

Dear Saad Farouk See enclosed file for the best publicly available list released here on RG.

Best regards.

What can be said with decent certainty is that open access has an impact advantage over science behind paywalls. View numbers are substantially higher resulting in higher citation numbers:

Going beyond that, the plain number of views is not necessarily a guarantee that it will be cited at all:

Thus, establishing a causality there probably would require shady argumentations.

Thanks for interesting discussion!

Interested!

Dear Khlood Al , if you can not afford to buy this article, you may ask one of the co-authors to send you a copy of this article.

Giulia Flamini is member of Researchgate community.

See these previous discussions:

Dear Yinebeb Teferi I think it is the Vancouver reference style, see for example enclosed file.

Best regards.

"Papers with titles or abstracts that mention certain artificial intelligence (AI) methods are more likely to be among the top 5% most-cited works in their field for a given year than are those that don’t reference those techniques. These papers also tend to receive more citations from outside their field than do studies that don’t refer to AI terms. However, researchers from groups that have been historically underrepresented in science do not receive the same citation ‘boost’ as their counterparts, suggesting that AI could exacerbate existing inequalities..."

Even if the subject is known in History, I prefer to give two or even three references on this subject. These multiple references confirm the importance of the event, show young historians that references are the basis of History and give the seriousness and fidelity of the truth.

Artificial Intelligence are not always efficient.

To track your publications and citations from July 2024 to October 10, 2024, you can use platforms like Google Scholar, Scopus, or ResearchGate, which allow researchers to create profiles and monitor citation counts.

On Google Scholar, set up a profile linked to your published works, and it will automatically track new citations. Scopus provides a more detailed analysis of citations, though it may require institutional access. ResearchGate also allows you to manually upload publications, track citations, and engage with other researchers.

Additionally, tools like ORCID ensure your work is consistently linked to your unique researcher ID across various platforms.

Thank you.

Thanks so much, Mina. Do you have a reference at hand for this?

See these previous discussions:

In ResearchGate (RG), open the page of the article (e.g., https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384097479). When RG's automated algorithm will have found citations, there will be a number in parantheses after "Citations". Then click on "Citations" to see the details. However, note that it may take some time (even a few years) before RG will find citations, and very often the list is not complete. - Here is an example with 35 citations: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253407775

Citations depend on many factors, even when misconduct is excluded. See also these discussions:

what about his impact factor and indexing?

Perhaps there are more RG scholars who are doing/conducting research studies/articles/papers relevant to your research topic.

The first section ("Early observations") in the Wikipedia article "Accelerating change" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change) lists some early publications. However, I think that Ole Sand refers to the discussions on the exponential growth of knowledge in the early 1960ies, e.g. by D.J. de Solla Price (Science Since Babylon, Yale Univ. Press 1961).

This arcticle was published in the book "Comprehensive Musicianship", see https://books.google.com/books?id=dAUvAAAAMAAJ&q="Current+Trends+in+Curriculum+and+Instruction"+Ole+Sand. Bibliographic details of this book: https://search.worldcat.org/title/291292

Please note that you wrote to the ResearchGate community, not to the RG team. However, it is not worth writing to them, because they do not have the capacity to do such changes by hand. All citations are found by automated algorithms, and these do not work very well. ResearchGate contains a lot of wrong citations (I know this from my own publications), whereas other citations are missing.

ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) was the entity which initially launched the Web of Science platform. In 1997, the platform went over to Thomson and since 2017 it has been run by Clarivate Analytics.

Clarivate has resumed using the "brand" ISI, but the actual institution doesn't exist anymore as an independent entity.

من الضروري توفير الدعم والموارد الكافية للمجلات العلمية لتمكينها من نشر أكبر عدد ممكن من الأوراق البحثية المقبولة.

Hello everyone

I face the same issue, I have about thirty citations on Google Scholar not showed on Reserachgate,

Could any of you find a solution?

Of course there is bias there. If you e.g. make a claim in a publication and want to support it with a suitable reference, a reference by a Nobel laureate will generate more trust than that of a lesser known scientist, even though the lesser known guy may have said it first. It would of course be a better practice to co-cite both of them, but quite often that isn't done and so the famous scientist's citation index increases even further.

See these related discussions:

Mendeley Cite -> Citation Settings -> Citation Style -> Change Citation Style -> American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

The citations in the text would merge automatically to the order cited.

See these discussions on how to increase the number of citations:

See also:

Once you have a profile and are able to send questions and aswers, this means that you are already a member. What I wanted to say before is that if you want to see stats for someone else, this works only if that other person is a member and thus has a profile.

There is no direct connection between RG and GS, and citations cannot be added by hand. See also these discussions on missing citations:

Never search for a reference by copying the name

Type it

Concerning preprints and peer review, see these previous discussions:

See also:

See these previous discussions:

It is not possible to recover citations and recommendation from deleted articles. Concerning the link to your co-author's profile, see my reply to https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_insert_an_authors_name_and_link_to_his_profile.

See these discussions on missing citations in Google Scholar:

If you receive weekly citation notifications from ResearchGate but cannot find the detailed report, there are several steps you can take. First, check the email carefully for any links that may direct you to more detailed information on the ResearchGate platform. If that doesn't help, visit your ResearchGate profile and look under the "Stats" section, where detailed citation data, including who cited your work, should be visible. You can also review the "Citations" tab under each of your publications for specifics. Additionally, check your activity feed or notifications on the platform, as citation details may appear there.

Unfortunately, there is no way to add citations to ResearchGate "by hand". See also my reply to https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_are_the_citation_numbers_on_ResearchGate_RG_and_Google_Scholar_GS_unmatched and more links to discussions therein.

In rare cases, citations may disappear from ResearchGate, e.g. when two pages for one and the same publication get merged.

This looks like a temporary problem at ResearchGate. Meanwhile, the 143 publications have been restored (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wolfgang-Treimer-2/research), and your stats page (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wolfgang-Treimer-2/stats) indicates 2,872 citations and an h-index of 23/19. I guess the other stats (Reads, Research Interest Score) will also be restored. This may take a few days.

See these related discussions:

See https://help.researchgate.net/hc/en-us/articles/14293139566353-Journals for explanations why some journals are missing. Unfortunately, it is not possible to add a journal to RG's database "by hand". In case of a missing journal in this database, I add the bibliographic data to the abstract field (like, e.g., in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344474227 and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268925009).

Indexed conferences within trusted academic platforms are perfectly cited by other colleagues, so it is important to avoid predatory conferences.

Wish you all the best..

Regards

Thanks a lot!

The varying perspectives presented across the Jewish Talmud suggest that there are different ways to approach this issue, and it’s ultimately a balance. Just as the Talmud highlights the importance of both tradition (historical knowledge) and evolution (current interpretations and applications), a similar approach Alex Kakungi could be applied to referencing in academic literature. There is enough evidence from these texts to argue that neither older nor newer references inherently hold more value than the other; rather, their worth is context-dependent. Much like the teachings stated in these pieces from the Talmud, foundational works can be the base of profound understanding and may contribute context and depth to the topic at hand. However, more recent literature can provide current perspectives and take into account the continual development and progression of knowledge in the field. Hence, the most effective approach may indeed be maintaining a balance wherein older references provide foundational understanding and newer references provide currency and relevancy, bringing a depth of exploration to the work. This dynamic of mutual inclusivity allows a research work to remain grounded in foundational theories while adapting to and acknowledging the evolving landscape of its subject matter. Such a balanced approach also respects the adage presented in the Talmud about previous generations who have "plowed and planted" knowledge, while also addressing the changing perspectives and evolving understanding of newer generations. Therefore, both older and newer references are essential and contribute valuable insights to academic research !

I am sure you have not deleted these publication pages completely because this is not possible inadvertently. They are still available in ResearchGate and visible, but they are no longer attached to your profile. You just have to find them and claim authorship again. There are three ways to find these publication pages:

1. Look into https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Celene-Milanes-Batista/unconfirmed (visible only to you)

2. Search for the titles in https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?query=&type=publication

3. Search with your name with Google for ResearchGate pages, i.e. https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.researchgate.net+Celene+Milanés+Batista

Simply, it depends on the data base of each platform...

Wish you all the best respected colleague..

It is impossible, because each case of citation is completely depending on its own data base. By the way, each platforms in academia has a specific data based depending on its members.

Wish you all the best respected colleague...

Good luck..

Dear Emad Kamil Hussein

The Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) is a metric used to evaluate the impact of a scholarly article or researcher’s output relative to the global average in that specific field. It is considered an important metric in academic publishing because it provides a more nuanced understanding of citation impact by taking into account the differences in citation practices across different disciplines.

Key Points about FWCI:

Comparison with Other Metrics:

FWCI is particularly valuable in fields where citation practices vary widely, as it provides a more equitable basis for comparison. It complements other metrics like the h-index, which provides a different view of impact but does not account for field differences. Understanding and using multiple metrics in tandem gives a more comprehensive view of a researcher's impact.

In summary, FWCI is an important metric, especially for cross-disciplinary comparisons, and it should be considered alongside other citation metrics like the h-index to get a full picture of research impact.

Sincerely

It is better to delete on of the duplicated files.

Yes, if the spatial independence was insignificant this implies that the spatial structure of your data matters, which means that GGAMM can "capture" variance that GAMM can't (GGAMM includes spatially structured random effects -> better fits),

Blangiardo, M., & Cameletti, M. (2015). Spatial and Spatio-temporal Bayesian Models with R-INLA. Wiley.

E. E. Kammann, M. P. Wand, Geoadditive Models, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics, Volume 52, Issue 1, January 2003, Pages 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9876.00385

To see the citations identified by ResearchGate's automated algorithm, click on "Citations" in the publication's page. See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278585677/citations in this case. But note that this list may not be complete. Unfortunately, the algorithm does not work so well: Rather often citations are not found by this algorithm or are misidentified, and there is no way to add a citation "by hand". See also my reply to https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_so_many_of_my_genuine_citations_were_not_spotted_by_the_ResearchGate_citation_managers_Is_there_anything_I_can_do with a selection of links to discussions about this problem.