Active discussions

Delete "controversy" sectionEdit

The section describes a member of ResearchGate, not the service itself. I suppose registered sex offenders also use facebook but that wouldn't be mentioned in their Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicbeerg (talkcontribs) 19:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

External Download?Edit

According to the article, ResearchGate uses a crawler to find PDF versions of articles on the homepages of authors and publishers. These are then presented as if they had been uploaded to the web site by the author:

and this seems true, but then

the PDF will be displayed embedded in a frame, and only the button label "External Download" indicates that the file was in fact not uploaded to ResearchGate

Presently I see a big deal of recent manuscripts published on arxiv and indexed on researchgate without even a mention of arxiv, let alone the "External Download" label. Has anyone further informations? Popop (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

ResearchGate changes, it is a moving target. Maybe they renamed the button. Maybe it is because arXiv has rather permissive licensing if I am not mistaken; the PDFs from an authors homepage likely do not come with a known license. As far as I can tell, Researchgate stopped some of their biggest annoyances (haven't gotten spam anymore, have not seen a researchgate-modified PDF in a while - apparently the authors now have to enable this? - and many of the copies on Researchgate have been removed because of the lawsuits. Last but not least, Researchgate seems to have become a least-resort URL in Google scholar, so I just don't see a lot of it anymore. Anyway, they must be chewing through their venture capital like crazy, and I wonder when they'll simply be out of money anyway... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

ACS v. ResearchGateEdit

Elsevier's lawsuit against ResearchGate is probably going to be an interesting precedent about a number of issues, so it will probably need to be its own article at some point. As an example, see :

The Copyright Act of 1976 made a fundamental change to copyright law by making copyright divisible. Authors can give someone else exclusive rights in a portion of their copyright, for example the exclusive right of first publication, retaining no right of first publication for themselves. The drafters of the Copyright Act also contemplated that this might create conflicting rights amongst authors and so also provided that:

The court may require [the legal or beneficial owner] to serve written notice of the action with a copy of the complaint upon any person shown, by the records of the Copyright Office or otherwise, to have or claim an interest in the copyright, and shall require that such notice be served upon any person whose interest is likely to be affected by a decision in the case. The court may require the joinder, and shall permit the intervention, of any person having or claiming an interest in the copyright.

As far as I can tell, this case is the first time someone has asked a court to invoke this provision, 41 years after the current Copyright Act became effective. But the effort wasn’t successful.

Nemo 10:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to "ResearchGate" page.