Talk:ResearchGate/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lugger

User:Sjuttiosjuochfjorton posted (in pertinent part) the following on my personal talk page:

Beatrice Lugger's complaint was exaggerated and RG members are very unlikely to obtain higher scores unless having an extensive publication record. Her statement should not have been quoted in the first place. Importantly, her RG score of 10 is based 70% on her 4 publications (one of them has an impact factor > 30 and as a researcher you know this is very high). This makes her statement in the blog misleading and it should not be quoted on Wikipedia without supporting information. We are not in the business of spreading misinformation and Wikipedia has to be objective. We have to scrutinize information from personal blogs/websites, right?

Because this concerns article content, I am cross-posting and replying here.

It is certainly worth asking whether the Lugger source meets the criteria of WP:BLOGS or WP:NEWSBLOG. I checked very briefly, and it appeared that this is a professional blog and not a personal one, but I may well be mistaken about that and that is worth discussing.

Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC) A. Lugger's own opinions are posted on the blog. She has 1-5 regular posters only. I have never heard of this person. B. Her current RG score is < 10 and is based on her publications mostly. C. Her screen capture of a past RG score does not even indicate her name. D. Importantly, the criticism is outdated at best and Wikipedia should be up-to-date. E. I provided links so you can check the information I gave. It adds objectivity, up to date information, and is therefore more useful for the reader. F. One of the past editors (Chire) clearly showed his subjectivity by stating "researchgate is useless crap". How many more reasons do you need to include my info? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Make the critique more objective and current. Should I really have to contact RG administration and have them verify that Lugger's criticism is outdated? Check yourselves. The original quote should have been questioned with the same tenacity.

However, if indeed the source is acceptable, I think that rebutting it with unsourced and primary-sourced statements is not appropriate. Thoughts? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet I totally agree. Wikipedia is not about truth, for good reasons, editors of this page need to realise this. Specific policy here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth Millionmice (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

For now, I have removed the original research rebutting Lugger's statement. I do have some sympathy for User:Sjuttiosjuochfjorton's objections, and I suggest that the best way to proceed would be to find a reliable source (even a RG website would be acceptable as a source for stating RG's opinion) that critically engages with Lugger. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC) This is a tad frustrating. The whole point is that Lugger's initial comment was inaccurate/false. 70% of her current RG score (~10) is based on her submitted publications and not on her questions or comments (check the link that I provided). As such, her original RG score of 10 was more than likely also based on these research papers and not on "her other contributions". Her critique is thereby proven highly questionable/false and should be removed or balanced with my overly nice statements. Why is this even a problem? If this is the way Wikipedia is working on a general basis I understand why researchers like myself shy away from adjusting/correcting inaccuracies.

Judging from the screenshot on her blog (which does seem a reliable source by Wikipedia standards to me), 70% of her score was based on her questions on RG, and 0% on her publications back then. So his statement does not make sense to me, and is WP:OR. Of course these values are old, but the date is evident from the source. If we want to engage in speculation, the coauthor of the same publication currently has a RG score of 7.38, 100% from this one publication. Her current score is 9.97, and RG reports 71% being the publication history (shouldn't it be 74%?), so her 10 questions and answers increased her score by 2.59! But all of such speculation shouldn't be on Wikipedia, without reliable sources. We don't care about the score-of-the-day, but we do care about journalism that says the RG score is unreliable. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth: if you believe this is incorrect, publish a rebuttal in an appropriate format, and then we can add it here. --Chire (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC): A) The critique is not valid anymore. Outdated. Wikipedia should be up to date and this criticism is not anymore. It may (with emphasis on may) have been pertinent several years ago, but this is not a historical article. B) There are several reasons why her statements are out of place/odd. If find it very peculiar that in two years (and by adding a 30+ impact factor paper [and 3 others]) that her RG score is less than her score in 2012. If you want to get really technical on the 70%: How do you know that the screenshot is from her own score? Her name is not on it and as a member she can access anybody's score. C) Although she appears to be a self-appointed science journalist, since when did blogs become "bonafide" journalism? Who is Beatrice Lugger? Can I quote myself if I add this discussion onto my science blog? I mean, I have more publications than she has and probably more scientific credibility. D) All in all, we have to check and update our information + question the sources. If you do not buy that Wikipedia needs to be up to date, it goes against the whole point of having a quickly evolving source of information i.e. the basis of this very community. It is not a historical article.

Wikipedia is also about history. Flat Earth is a proper topic for Wikipedia; Earth is not flat, but there are a lot of reliable sources about why and when people believed it was flat. If you can identify a reliable source with more up-to-date information, we can add this new situation, too. But don't add your own blog, and don't add anything if you are affiliated with researchgate, because of WP:Conflict of interest. In my personal opinion, the critique is still valid, btw; and researchgate is useless crap, and they are spammers; but very good in self-marketing (the "stem cell study" hype for example - it is an open debate in medicine that 70% of medical research findings are false for simple statistical reasons, now RG makes a fuzz of a single false one as if they had found the holy grail)... so what. Opinions vary, live with it. Many people are highly sceptical of the RG score, and the usefulness of RG; and the lugger source serves as an example reliable source of this. --Chire (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)A) Chire: The critique is not valid anymore. I have provided links: 1. Her score in 2012 was 10x less than the highest according to her own blog! 2. The information is now also completely outdated (and questionable in the first place) and the stats I provided are current. Her critique would potentially only fit under a section called "historical growing pains", but it certainly does not fit in its current organisation. B) Here is another big problem: You showed your subjectivity and bias by saying "researchgate is useless crap". This immediately disqualifies you from being objective enough to contribute to this article. C) Of course I am not affiliated with Researchgate and neither am I interested in quoting myself :-). My point is that the original quote could have come from any Joe Schmoe if you picked Lugger. Lugger only has 1-2 posters on her science blog, she does not publish in peer-reviewed journals frequently, and her credibility is not established in the article. Who is she? I have given so many viable arguments why my additions still should stand that indeed it appears that I am engaging in a discussion with the Flat Earth Society or Westboro Baptists. Current, objective, science-based. That is what Wikipedia should strive for. Not subjective opinions.

The statement is clearly marked as "In 2012", and as being her personal opinion; as required by Wikipedias style. It is verifiable. Wikipedia is about WP:Verifiability, not truth. --Chire (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)As I have stated on numerous occasions now: The criticism is outdated, misleading, and therefore it no longer serves a purpose. My additions were verifiable facts (links provided) and made her critique more well-rounded and objective. The quote should have been deleted so I was more than nice and I have already compromised from that perspective. Now you bunch need to budge otherwise this will be ongoing. Chire: Your statement that the website is "useless crap" has disqualified you from being able to add any more insights to this discussion. I would prefer if the discussion was passed on to someone with an objective mindset, with energy to check links and read/answer posts.

I am still wondering why this criticism is included here? It is based on the experience of one blogger, and it appears to be written in a personal blog and not a professional one, which does not qualify as a credible, independent third-party source. I think the Lugger criticism should be removed entirely. Does anyone else agree? JNorman704 (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There is concern about the reliability of this score (even on researchgate: [1][2], but also the links above wrt. to Nobel laureates having 0 RG score); and the Lugger source seems to be the most reliable we have found so far on the quality of the scores (this one may be a better, more recent, source though: SAIS 2014, which seems to analyze a "dormant" user in the network). If e.g. this source (or some other) turns out to be more reliable, then I'm all in with dropping it. A quick search on her name revealed she is not just "some blogger", but vice scientific director of Klaus Tschira Foundation#NaWik at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology; an institute for science communication (although that post seems to be more part of her journalist activities, than as vice director of that institution). --Chire (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC) A. I have given you a logical explanation about RG scores of certain Nobel Laureates below. B.The link you provided does not mention research gate specifically and pertains to all (scientific) social networking sites. Either way, the information in the article is not obtainable for most readers http://elibrary.aisnet.org/Default.aspx?url=http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=sais2014.C. Beyond the multiple reasons I have given you already why Lugger's statements should be tempered, her blog is not moderated by anyone but herself and she has far too few followers to keep content objective and evolving. The input about RG is her subjective and out-to-date opinion and it does not hold up to current evidence. It is as simple as that. JNorman704:

Thanks for your response, Chire. This still feels like it is not balanced. What would feel more balanced to me is to say that some users have posted in blogs and online forums that their ResearchGate scores were high despite limited use of the service, and then balance that with information about how ResearchGate calculates scores, etc. To give both sides of the story. I'm not opposed to posting criticisms at all, but I feel like posting one blogger's experience, not matter how esteemed that blogger may be, just doesn't feel balanced to me. JNorman704 (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

As I have said, I have no position on the appropriateness of the Lugger source. If there is consensus it does not meet the criteria of WP:BLOGS or WP:NEWSBLOG, then I have no objection to removing the entire subsection. That it is "the most reliable we have found so far" on the topic is immaterial; if it does not meet the criteria, then we simply have no acceptable sources that address the topic and we cannot address the topic (we have already been through this with the spamming issue). On the other hand, if it does meet the criteria, then we cite it, even if it is "not balanced" by acceptable sources expressing the opposite opinion.

In any case, including the information and then rebutting it with WP:OR is simply not an acceptable solution.

@Sjuttiosjuochfjorton: You claim to be a researcher. I am a scientific researcher myself. If that is true, then you should be adept at listening to others' arguments and adapting your own to respond effectively.

@Chire: You have repeatedly cited WP:COI to Sjuttiosjuochfjorton, and indeed it is reasonable to be concerned about that. However, if you have an agenda to discredit RG because you believe they are "useless crap, and they are spammers", then you also may run afoul of the WP:COI policy, even if you have no financial stake in the matter. Take care.

All for now. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for being a voice of reason, BlueMoonlet. I really appreciate it. My feeling is that there have been a LOT of edits to this article from others who have an agenda to discredit RG. A fair number of these edits in the past have come from anonymous users. I'm not a scientist or RG user but I do care about fairness and balance on Wikipedia and I feel that this article has not lived up to Wiki standards due to an overly negative POV. My vote is to remove the Lugger criticism. Thanks for listening. JNorman704 (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the good word, JNorman704. Of course, we don't vote on Wikipedia; rather, we discuss the issue at hand and seek consensus. Whether the source stays or goes should be based on WP:RS policy and nothing else. I think the best way to proceed would be for User:Chire to quote the WP:BLOGS and/or WP:NEWSBLOG policy and explain exactly why he thinks this source meets those criteria, and then for you to respond to his argument. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! JNorman704 (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonlet:, @JNorman704:: I don't think I have a real COI. I'm just being honestly at being annoyed by their spam emails (17+ and counting); but I don't think I have more of a COI than a fanboy user of their platform has a COI. There are not a lot of emotions involved, nor financial interests. I have not claimed that Sjuttiosjuochfjorton has a COI, I have only asked him if he has; because he was very emotional, which often indicates a COI. Either way, what do you think of the SAIS 2014 source (google also returns a PDF, [3])? --Chire (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Chire: I don't doubt that you are able to govern yourself in such a way as to avoid a COI. I just wanted to point out that the issue is worth some careful thought on your side as well as the other.

@Chire: and @Sjuttiosjuochfjorton: In my opinion, both of you are editing in good faith, and I suggest both of you assume that about each other and stop casting up the WP:COI policy to each other.

I think the SAIS source is likely fine, though I would invite User:JNorman704 and User:Sjuttiosjuochfjorton to argue otherwise if they wish. Speaking of which, User:Chire, did you specify your policy arguments in favor of the Lugger source? Both JNorman704 and Sjuttiosjuochfjorton have criticized the source, and it would be easier to evaluate the issue if we had a clearer idea of what are the arguments for inclusion in the first place. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonlet: Scilogs.de is operated by Spektrum der Wissenschaft - the German branch of Scientific American. This is not a personal blog, but it consists of invited posts by researchers and journalists. All of this is easy to verify by going to the front page [4]. So it should qualify as WP:NEWSBLOG. She is also "coordinating [the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings] conference blog since 2008" [5] for nature.com and moderating panel discussions for Nobel laureates [6] and on panels for science communication in new media [7]. So yes, it is journalism, not a self-published blog; her blog is published by the German branch of Scientific American. --Chire (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Chire, that seems like a strong case.

@JNorman704: and @Sjuttiosjuochfjorton: If you continue to be unconvinced about the appropriateness of the Lugger source, please read the policy at WP:NEWSBLOG and make your argument from that policy. Up to now, your arguments seem to me to have amounted to 1) balancing this Wikipedia article and 2) disagreeing with what Lugger says. However, 1) is not a reason to exclude the source altogether, though we can have a conversation about how to ensure we do not give it undue weight, and 2) amounts mostly to original research.

It seems to me that your options are 1) rebut Chire and argue that the Lugger source does not in fact meet the criteria of WP:NEWSBLOG, 2) find a reliable source that disagrees with Lugger (I would say that even a rebuttal directly from RG would be admissable if reported as the opinion of RG), or 3) acquiesce to the discussion of the Lugger material roughly as it currently stands, possibly with a discussion about WP:UNDUE. Thoughts? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 09:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Finally some common sense without an agenda. However, BlueMoonlet keeps on referring to WP:RS but the fact is that my additions come from the original citations (i.e. Lugger's own site and Researchgate; check the links and translate from German into English if you need to). If my additions are disqualified then logically the original quote is disqualified as well. It seems like this "crux of the matter" is partly missed by BlueMoonlet and Chire. Further to this, Wikipedia is indeed about open peer review, up to date information, and not about "fairness" between editors. The truth is not democratic in all cases and the objective information that I added is clearly originating from RG and Lugger's own blog. So, logically, Lugger's outdated original complaint (at best) can stay but only if tempered with something in style with what I have written. If you want to take up a discussion in regards to make up of RG scores then do so, but that is a completely different discussion/section in the article.

Nevertheless, Chire has no clue whether or not Lugger's quote was legit even in 2012. The information she provided is not only outdated but highly questionable, especially the claim that her contributions were only questions/answers. Facts speak against this and I have provided her current profile as a link (see A). Neither does Chire know whether or not the blog is mostly a vehicle for Lugger to express her own opinions or not. It clearly appears that it is the case from the tidbits I have read. Yes, I am fluent in German, a published scientist, and listen to critique BlueMoonlet! If you really view blogs as feasible sources of scientific news and objectivity then you must consider the amount of followers too. The blog basically has a handful of followers and I have never heard of Lugger in the first place. It seems to me that someone(Chire?) searched the web in an effort to find a quote that supported his or her subjective views. It is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that editor Chire is biased ("researchgate is useless crap") so this should disqualify him/her from further discussion and editing. Either way, it is not a democracy (and it is not only about objectivity), it is also about up-to-date information. Do we want Wikipedia to be outdated?

A) One of her papers basically makes up the entirety of her current RG score since it is published in a high impact factor journal. Sometimes when you add publications to the site, the score is immediately updated but the graphics may not be. There is just no way her current RG score of 9.98 would be lower than her 2012 score if she has added these papers afterwards. One of them is a 30+ impact factor paper for Pete's sake! More than likely, her graphics just was not updated and she made an erroneous conclusion in her blog.

Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Lastly, the whole discussion about Nobel Price winners: If they do not post their publications from high impact journals or secondarily contribute to the discussion in RG, then their RG score will be low. You do not automatically receive a high RG score just because you are a Nobel Price winner. The score reflects the entirety of your work (primarily number of pubs and official impact factor of the journals where they were published) and not only the findings in one publication. Being a Nobel Price winner can be like being a one hit wonder. Does that make their contribution to the community greater than someone who makes semi-good science their whole career? Perhaps, perhaps not. It makes common sense this way, but if you feel that this is unfair then make a case with RG to change the way they make up the RG score. I feel that in general, high impact factor research gets published in high impact factor journals. Researchers in economy appears to publish in low impact factor journals and that is too bad for them. That, on the other hand, is a discussion about impact factor per se, which is best left for the entirety of the scientific community.

Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC) There is extensive discussion regarding this subject on Research gate and if anything someone needs to summarize the major points objectively and extensively to include it under a balanced section on criticism. Until then Lugger's comments need to be tempered + you can provide a summary of what RG scores are: The hard-core center of the RG Score, besides interactions, is the journal impact factor system, used in the RG Score and the overall ranking of journal publications. Upon closer inspection, it is evident that RG impact factors are based on the Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge (WoK) database, which includes some 23,000 journals Web_of_Knowledge. Secondly, I am posting the following a little tongue in cheek (any Joe Schmoe can dig up quotes to support their cause), but in reality it is a balanced statement provided by a Polish researcher from Poznan University of Technology on RG: "RG score - no matter, how much his faults we can prove, precisely takes into account not only dry pronunciation of numbers (in terms of the publishing achievements), but also a scientist activity toward seeking contacts with other scientists. It is a factor which should not be underestimated, because in the end, for example, he may be much more important for the creation of successful multidisciplinary and international research teams (any type of cooperation), than dry numbers indicating the quantity and quality of publications".

We need to make a decision now and end this abnormally long and tedious interaction (for such a small adjustment to the original comment). I say again, if this is how Wikipedia editors in generally work when they are offered free advice and suggestions from credible, helpful, and intelligent sources then I have to reevaluate my future contributions. It has not been a pleasure. Adios amigos.

@Sjuttiosjuochfjorton: I'm sorry that you have been frustrated. While your participation is much valued, the fact is that honest disagreements about what an article should say are common, so you can't just assume that your "free advice and suggestions" will be uncritically accepted. While our methods of reaching consensus may seem tedious, they have been worked out through more than a decade of grappling with the very same fundamental issues that appear in the conversation we have been having.

There is a fundamental difference between an argument made by a reliable source from facts cited by that source and an argument made by a Wikipedia editor based directly on primary sources. The former is generally acceptable, while the technical term for the latter is original research, which is disallowed. That following this policy may result in only one side of an argument being represented is immaterial. If this bothers you, then the remedy is either to question the appropriateness of the source (as you have done, with results that are yet inconclusive) or to find a reliable source that supports the rebuttal you hope to make.

Whether Lugger's post is outdated is also immaterial, I think. The article already cites it as a description of what happened on RG in 2012. That is relevant, even if RG has changed since then. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section

I'd appreciate it if other WIki editors watching this page could weigh in on the latest additions to the Criticism section, regarding Shiller and Sargent. To me, these additions, formatting issues aside, are an example of WP:OR, which states "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research...This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Thank you in advance for your thoughts and suggestions. JNorman704 (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this is WP:OR. In particular, as the mentioned RG pages may not be actively used. When authors don't "claim" their papers, no wonder the score is not accurate (note that I'm not implying that it will ever be useful. I'm very skeptic of RG, and I was also annoyed by their spam). Has anyone managed to find Open Up the Research Gate : Networking and Researching Communities on Academic Social Network Sites [8] anywhere as PDF? This might be some actual reliable source on the usefulness/accuracy of researchgate. --Chire (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the edit war regarding WP:OR vs 'anger at spam' is taking up an inordinately large portion of the talk page and edit history. Note that the RG privacy policy states: "ResearchGate will process your email address solely to send e-mails to you containing information or notifications about the Service. ResearchGate reserves the right to attach a minor part to such e-mails containing advertisements for products and services of any third party." .

To me "information or notifications" and "the Service" are suitably nonspecific/broad that they allow RG to send whatever they please, and are hence a referenceable way to express that RG sends emails. However, this has potential to give rise to new issues/accusations of WP:NOR and WP:WORDS (particularly WP:WEASEL). I'd appreciate feedback from someone reversing the spam criticisms on what would be acceptable. Millionmice (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Added above content as there was no input one way or the other. I have summarised a paragraph added about spam since I last checked this page, and I believe made it compliant with WP:OR. If you disagree please consider how/if we can preserve the spam critisism despite only having fair quality references. The inclusion of this content has some merit. --Millionmice (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

To anyone monitoring this page, I wonder if the ResearchGate Wikipedia article should be semi-protected, per WP:S-P? I have noticed for months now that, in most cases, anonymous users keep posting essentially the same criticism, alleging that Researchgate is a spammer. The additions thus far have not used credible, independent sources for citations and often constitute WP:OR. Constructive thoughts or suggestions welcome. JNorman704 (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

No, they are spammers and there are many reliable sources. Many scientists have reported openly that they received spam from researchgate and that researchgate commits identity theft for spamming. It does not get any more reliable than this. The only thing is that the blogs/discussion boards/home pages of scientists reporting about this are considered primary sources. Some people think that primary sources are not admissible on wikipedia. In my opinion this is misreading policy. Martin.uecker (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

We never use primary sources to support criticism. A good source would be a review of academic networking services, published in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal, written by an expert in the relevant field. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I am very sympathetic to those who want to add this information. As a working scientist myself, I have received spam from ResearchGate that gained my attention by presenting itself as a message from a trusted colleague. On the other hand, as a Wikipedian, I have to acknowledge the points made here by JNorman704 and Anthonyhcole.

To those who want this criticism to have an ironclad basis for appearing in the Wikipedia article: What is needed is a news report or a description from an acknowledged commentator on the science community. If you can find even one such RS-qualifying report, then those here who are skeptical of including the critical information would probably be satisfied and we would be in a much better position. The problem is that, as far as I can tell, ResearchGate is simply not notable enough to have attracted such critical attention.

Regarding JNorman704's suggesting of semi-protection: I don't think what's been happening at this article meets the criteria set forth in WP:S-P. What we have experienced here is generally not intended as vandalism or disruption, but rather inexperienced editors who are affected by the article subject's actions and want the article to reflect those actions, but who need to learn why WP's policies place us in a tricky position regarding that. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I find it sad that Wikipedia articles degenerate into PR bullshit because news articles copied from PR releases are considered more reliable than many reputable scientists reporting publicly about some fact. Wikipedia Policy explicitly asks to apply common sense. We don't do this here. Think about this: Those silicon-valley-funded spammers simply put out a press release about themselves which ends up to be considered a reliable fact, while editors here ask for a peer-reviewed study in a high-quality journal just to be able to report a highly relevant fact that everybody knows to be true? Martin.uecker (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Especially when it's a quite small minority of editors who do this. I've counted 17 people in favor of covering ResearchGate's spamming practices based on our current sources (which are more than good enough in my opinion) on this talk page, 4 people who want to cover it but are overly worried about paragraph pushing, and 5 people don't think the spamming is an issue. But those 5-9 people have much more time on their hands. As Martin.uecker says, not only are the censors here far too demanding of the sources that describe the spamming; they also fail to uphold ResearchGate's own statements to those same lofty standards. Amaurea (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the latest edits to the Criticism section regarding spam. I am proposing an edit that summarizes the complaints as well as ResearchGate policy, to provide a more concise and balanced entry:

"Some users have posted on public Internet forums that ResearchGate automatically emails invitations to other researchers to join ResearchGate and confirm their authorship of a research paper posted to the site. These users claim that the invitations are made to look as if they sent them but were actually emailed without their consent.

However, ResearchGate states in its FAQ: 'If you’d like your co-authors to join you, just ensure that the "Invite my co-authors to ResearchGate box" is checked when you’re adding publications, and where possible, an invitation will be sent. Invitations will only be sent if this box is checked. You can customize this feature at any time from your Account Settings.'" (Citation will be: https://news.researchgate.net/index.php?/archives/184-Introducing-our-FAQ-Part-II.html)

Please let me know what you think. My goal is to end the back and forth on this issue with a fair and balanced edit. JNorman704 (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Judging from the various posts, A) this box is or was checked by default, and B) it used to read "Add my co-authors that are already using ResearchGate as contacts and invite those who are not yet members." (reference on ResearchGate) to make it sound much less like "spam them with invitations". Which quite well explains the amount of negative review that ResearchGate received. I'm definitely not going to join them; they've ruined their reputation. I received at least 11 invitations and automatic reminders of invitation from them. None of the reseachers that sent me these invitations meant to do so, and most closed their account soon after. From a quick look, it seems that it's mostly students, and few major researchers on the site. I kept these 11 emails as proof, in case I want to file a C&D against ResearchGate at some point of abusing my name and/or privacy violations and/or UCE. --Chire (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with JNorman704's suggestion, which is sitting on the edge of what policy allows as far as WP:NOR is concerned, and note edits with thanks. While Chire's comments may be correct, I'm not clear what is being proposed. Referencing a minor change of wording as evidence of spam is not appropriate. I will continue to remove poorly referenced expansions on spam policy criticisms. Note that I do believe they are acting unethically, possible illegally, so I would very much welcome references that allow us to expand that section. Millionmice (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have attempted to (yet again) balance the email criticism in a way that acknowledges the criticism and sources it properly with the Swinburne blog post, but also does not imply that this experience will happen to every ResearchGate user, which is what most previous edits have implied. I have started to create a ResearchGate account and I saw this box, which is checked by default, but the box is obvious and can be easily unchecked. JNorman704 (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@JNorman704: By the way, that the "box is obvious and can be easily unchecked" does not negate that the box is checked by default and that its full implications may not be obvious to many users. The testimony of the Swinburne source (and the reason many of us who are researchers that have received RG emails are interested in editing this article) is that there are cases in which these emails are sent out of (at best) confusion on the part of the "sending" user. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 09:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Response to criticism section of this article

@BlueMoonlet::

@Chire::

@JNorman704::

Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to clarify/balance some of the criticisms brought up by one of the editors in regards to ResearchGate (see below). On the whole, the entire passage needs to be drastically shortened and the critique needs to be updated and more objective. I propose that the editor(s) in question write an article on “Critique of Social Networking Websites for Scientists”. If not, I suggest that you use only one sentence to sum up some of the previous legit concerns regarding ResearchGate (for example on dormant profiles). Currently it is just overkill, too much, and very unbalanced. Imagine if half of each Wikipedia article was filled with critical comments like the current ResearchGate article. Should we add half a page of criticism regarding the cumbersome editing process of Wikipedia? Please compare to the minimal criticism section of Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia.

Unsolicited email invitations

A) Please consider that the option titled "invite my coauthors to ResearchGate" is unchecked by default and each member has to purposefully check the box to send any invitations. As such the criticism is outdated/inaccurate and should be removed for the benefit of Wikipedia readers. The criticism section should not be a novel or “a hypothetical growing pains section” without acknowledging improvements made by RG. Again, ResearchGate does not email your coauthors on your behalf without your knowledge or consent.

B) There are several issues with the SAIS Proceedings citation itself and the lack of disclosure on contents within the paper:

1. 2014 SAIS Proceedings is not a traditional subscription journal, but "a pay to publish venue" (i.e. you pay a registration fee to publish and your work is not peer-reviewed by researchers in the field). This is, nevertheless, a more appropriate source/citation than Beatrice Lugger’s blog.

2. Meg Murray’s paper cannot possibly be considered a scientific research study (avoid this terminology for sure) considering the low number of cases used (one “User X” profile only!) and lack of peer review. At least ten “User X” profiles should have been added and some sort of comparison to Google Scholar, Mendelay, or Academia would have been pertinent. No statistics were run either.

3. Importantly, the criticism regarding automatically added papers is not current any longer since ReserachGate does not add papers without the author actively accepting authorship. This is also mentioned in the paper (“...an option appears to purview a listing of publications matching the user’s name. This option also appears as a message window each time you login to the ResearchGate site. From the listing provided, users have the option to ‘claim’ authorship to specific articles” and “ResearchGate provides the user with the option to remove publications from their profile"). Why was this not included? Anecdotally, I have not had a single paper added to my RG profile without my consent over the last year. In contrast, Google Scholar adds publications to my profile, which ends up being duplicates and potentially could inflate my H-index at times until I delete them.

In conclusion, considering that Murray’s paper was not a research study after all, her publication was not peer-reviewed, the critique mostly outdated/inaccurate, the proposed problem not isolated to ResearchGate only (also Google Scholar for example), this criticism should be be removed from this Wikipedia article.

With that said, there are legit and current complaints in Murray’s paper such as “dormant profiles waiting to be claimed”. I suggest focusing on that.

RG score

A) I have already disclosed the inappropriateness of using Beatrice Lugger as a reference:

1. The blog posts reflect her own personal point of views

2. The blog lacks sufficient readership to be considered an authoritative view on the matter (on average 1-5 regular readers that are discussing her opinions)

3. The fact that 70% of her current RG (i.e. ~10) score is based on her publications, which undermines her original comment

Anyhow, the entire section needs to be removed or tempered with a more balanced discussion on RG scores. The RG score is primarily made up by number of publications and the impact factor of the journal where they were published. This is completely in line with other scientrometrics [[9]]. The impact factor per se is based on the WoK citation index, which comprises over 23,000 peer-reviewed journals! The benefit of the RG score over the H-index is that it also puts a value on scientific contribution beyond publications. It would be more interesting if (and valuable to Wikipedia readers) if the editors compared and contrasted the RG score to the H-index or other scientrometrics. Each and every scientrometric has its positives and negatives so I find this section rather malplaced in the first place.

Anyhow, if the critique regarding Thompson Reuter brought forward by Arno Tausch is still pertinent, then perhaps it could be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia (is Scopus really better vs Thompson Reuter?) [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_Knowledge]] as well.https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_the_RG_score_be_dumped_into_the_dustbin_of_scientific_errors_and_erroneous_concepts_see_attached_paper_with_the_full_scientometric_data?_sg=4TLR0LhSBUSY1zteWg6VycSvx%2FEFNxqKOZs0QUKCw%2B648Gb%2F6iRZ6FG1lnQiclzN_zaWEBJXFiT2FH8LyfAVqByeVxrN8VzIjVC%2FAY6tiUjljEdwg%2F5M3WEQX3NMFK8dM

Risk of unintentional copyright infringement

A) 1. Since no article is uploaded automatically without the member’s knowledge, it is up to each member to upload the article itself. As such, this is not a fair criticism towards ResearchGate since it is 100% the member’s responsibility. Anyhow, this critique also “holds true” of other social networking sites including Academia and Mendelay. In conclusion, since it is the member’s responsibility only and because the criticism is not isolated to ResearchGate, the criticism can be generalized to “social networking sites for scientists” or removed entirely.

Provide WP:SOURCES. All of your claims I have so far found unsourced or even incorrect: the signup page of ResearchGate has the invitation box checked by default. SAIS (a chapter of Association for Information Systems, [10]) is using the usual blind peer review process (where is your source that it is not? their web page clearly has peer review). Unless you provide any proof that they are not to be taken serious, you better shut up with your slander. Meg Murray is a professor at Kennesaw State University. Who are you to discredit her research this way? You better come up with some verifiable facts, not just unsourced libel.

@Chire::Any website, even porn websites, have peer review under your definition ("web page peer review"). The reality is that Lugger's have no real peer-review and neither do most websites. The journal (SAIS Proceedings) does not have an impact factor, it is a pay-to-publish publication, and the review consisted of the following: "has been accepted for inclusion in SAIS 2014 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)". Peer review process is described in this article Peer_review and typically consists of 3 or more experts reviewing your paper. Clearly, it shows that Murray's paper was only reviewed by an administrator, most likely a secretary. This is also irrelevant since you are cherry-picking information from the paper. The paper states that ResearchGate had measures in place to avoid automatic adding of articles to the member's profile, but you ignore to state this in your critique. Why do you cherry-pick? Do you have an agenda? Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sjuttiosjuochfjorton: "pay to publish", where is your proof? "only reviewed by an administrator, most likely a secretary", where is your proof? I only see your insults here. I could not find evidence that the publication cost is different from any other conference, including the top ACM and IEEE conferences. --Chire (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, the blog post was not "lack sufficient readership", because (as detailed above) it is published by the German branch of the Scientific American, and invited part of their "scilogs" project (not just a standalone blog); which qualifies as reliable source per Wikipedia policy: WP:NEWSBLOG. You claimed to be a "scientist", but you do not provide any [[WP:SOURCES|verifiable sources] for your theses.

@Chire::You already know that I am a scientist with an H-index. Most importantly the sources provided are your own very sources (Lugger's blog, and ResearchGate, and the non-peer reviewed paper by Murray).Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sjuttiosjuochfjorton: I have no idea who you are. And I don't care, because Wikipedia is not about editors, but about WP:Reliable sources. I don't know her H-index either, because we all know that all indexes are crap. But she is obviously a professor at a respectable university, and she published her research in a peer-reviewed long-running conference by a professional organization (not some chinese spam publisher). Deliver reliable sources, not your own claims; I'm following Wikipedias policies, and you aren't. If you want your opinion in the article, why don't you publish your research, and then have someone else add it to the Wikipedia article? That is how science and how Wikipedia works. --Chire (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course the critique in the article could use some balancing , but for this e.g. researchgate needs publish some WP:SOURCES that we can use, for example details on how the RG score actually is computed or a clear statement that the default value of the invitation checkbox is "no".

@Chire::So balance it already!. There is enough info provided by independent researchers (with H-indexes higher than Murray + under "web page peer review") regarding the parts that make up the RG score. In regards to the invitation check-box: This must be a joke, right? It is like saying an astronaut cannot prove that the moon is not made of cheese although he/she has been there. Further to this, the evidence is right there for your grabbing! Log on to the website and check. Do you really need someone to tell you to breathe in order to breathe? (Q&A section and your very own profile). Importantly, if it ever was the case that the box was checked by default it is up to each user to un-check the box! This is crystal clear logic if you sign up on the website in the first place. Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sjuttiosjuochfjorton: still waiting for WP:Reliable sources for your "enough info provided by independent researchers". It only needs to satisfy Wikipedia policies, and not be your claims on this talk page. I went to the RG sign-up box, and it was checked by default. But that is not a WP:reliable source. The only reliable source we have so far, however, says that this is the default. Maybe you unchecked it when you registered; but the default is to spam coauthors and auto-add publications, apparently. --Chire (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The Arno Tausch statement, if it were published in a reliable source, would only undermine the critique: "[RG Score ...] is – upon closer inspection – seriously flawed"; and his more general statements just state that any score is flawed to some extend (he considers Scopus to have a substantially larger coverage than WoK though; and apparently he considers RG score the worst of them all?).

@Chire::Please, the discussion provided by Arno Tausch was well-needed, but the fact is that his statements are tempered by several researchers. Arno Tausch is the person who complains about Nobel Price Laureates' RG scores despite the fact it is clear that they are not contributing to the discussion or adding high-impact publications to their profiles (it is therefore obvious why their scores are so low). RG score has its pros and cons, but you are not balanced in your critique and you are not comparing it to other indices. The consensus appears to be that it is equally useful as other measures. The most pertinent comment he adds is that Scopus and Thompson Reuter are rating the journals differently and I suggested that you discuss this in another article on Wikipedia (because it is really not directly related to ResearchGate).Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The JASIST preprint I mentioned above comes to a similar conclusion... So please, provide reliable sources, not just links and claims. --Chire (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Chire::I did provide "reliable" sources. Your very own sources for Pete's sake. Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sjuttiosjuochfjorton: no, technically you did not provide a single reliable source. You only wrote pages of text, with no references. You claim to be a scientist. Then you should know how to give proper references. CITE some literature, for a change. Provide us with better peer-reviewed articles. I have not seen any such article cited by you. --Chire (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Chire: However much you may feel provoked, insulting phrases like "shut up" are not helpful.BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sjuttiosjuochfjorton: While I regret Chire's strong language, the fact is that you have repeatedly used a tiresomely large amount of text to assert your position without really engaging with what others have said. For example, I already responded to your point about possible changes to RG after critical sources were published, and I already responded to your point about the lack of multiple repetitions of Murray's study, but you essentially ignored me and restated your original position. It is hard to work towards WP:CONSENSUS on such a basis. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonlet:Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC) 1. Please scroll up after each section and add your comments accordingly. It is very hard to navigate this discussion and that is why I added my part below here.

On the contrary, PLEASE use indentation to make threaded discussions readable. Please

NEVER put text written by yourself into the same paragraph as text written by another user. You can copy-and-paste signatures if you separate what was formerly a single post into multiple parts with separate replies. I have illustrated all these things in this edit.

I should hardly need to add that you must go back and fix your last edit to conform with what I just said. Otherwise, you are wasting everyone's time because no one can now follow who said what and when. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonlet: At this time you are wasting time complaining about technical details rather than the issue at hand correct? Note taken, though. I have no clue who you are, or what capacity you play in all of this, but you need to understand that you are dealing with a completely biased editor (Chire) and that the critique section is not balanced nor fair. I have given you two every possible logical explanation why this section needs to be tempered and shortened. You are not listening to facts. It is getting to the point where I will just delete the criticism section on a daily basis because this is completely out of line. Cherry picking, bias, anonymous threats, editors with apparent agendas (Chire's quotes are right there for you to read), avoidance of facts. The criticisms in the article are not up-to-date with current ResearchGate procedures and you should start by actually logging into ResearchGate, check the settings for your own profile, and thereafter the Q&A section. If you have no account or are not actively on RG any longer, then how can you add a well-rounded opinion on this matter? Follow-up by reading the non-peer reviewed and unpublished paper(s) provided previously and decide if the criticisms are up-to-date with current procedures and if the other editor is guilty of cherry-picking. Thereafter you will see that the criticism is not balanced. The whole discussion must start with what is real and current and the burden of proof is in the person that posts the criticism in this case. Anyone can post a complaint on a blog or write a paper + pay and publish it a non-peer reviewed journal, and in some cases a retort to those commentaries is simply not merited. Should I have to dig up a paper to disprove a person who states that "the moon is made out of cheese" for example? Or in this case, outdated and/or exaggerated info regarding ResearchGate? Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Chire: (UTC) Beyond the personal attacks and threats you have provided on my personal page (some of it anonymously as well) you have shown that you have an agenda. Cherry-picking of content in general is inappropriate and when you do it from the very articles you provided it becomes embarrassing. How is this appropriate that you continue to edit the article? I do not care about your language at all as a matter of fact, but I do care about objectiveness and accuracy. The Wikipedia article needs to be balanced and the critiques section needs to be comprised to one sentence. As far as I know I have handled myself quite professionally and even invited the editor in question out for a cup of coffee. Where did the "shut up" statement come from?Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2014

Obokata scandal

A new section entitled "Influence" has been added by User:JNorman704 and others. It centers on this source and its claim that RG was "helped one researcher contribute to the debunking of a major stem cell study". I have several reservations here.

• First, is GigaOM a WP:RS? I don't know much about it, but I am not impressed by the breathless tone of the article or by the failure to quote anyone other than Lee (the researcher who used RG) and Madisch (the head of RG).
• Did the activity on RG really play a significant role in the Haruko Obokata scandal? Nature clearly doesn't think so, as its letter to Lee (linked by GigaOM in an update, to its credit) makes clear. Furthermore, other articles I have found about the Obokata scandal do not mention RG.[11][12][13][14] In the story by Science, I notice that the Riken Institute initiated an investigation into Obokata on 13 February, while it appears that Lee only posted his analysis on RG on 13 March. All this together would seem to indicate that the role played by RG in this story is not very significant.

I think the section needs to be drastically shortened if not removed entirely. Thoughts? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonlet: Thanks for your notes above. GigaOM is a well-known and respected technology news blog, with multiple editors and contributors and is a reliable source IMO. Other reliable sources have written about ResearchGate's role in this affair, such as Wired.co.uk -- http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/14/research-gate-kenneth-stem-cell-debunk.

I do not agree that this section should be removed or drastically shortened. I appreciate the additional paragraph about irreproducible and contradictory results being more frequent than one might expect. However, I feel that this could be shortened, and that there is some subjective language in it that should be removed, such as "this ResearchGate 'success story' is only another example..."

I would shorten this paragraph to: "However, irreproducible and even contradictory results in medicine are frequent, as shown by John P. A. Ioannidis in his 2005 seminal work "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"[14] and other studies." I believe that would make the necessary points but in a more concise, neutral way. JNorman704 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@JNorman704: The Wired article you just linked is nothing more than an interview with Lee. No one other than Lee says anything related to the Obokata case. Really, neither the GigaOM source nor the Wired source really supports the claim that Lee (and RG) played any significant role in the Obokata scandal, as neither source quotes anyone other than Lee and Madisch, both of whom clearly have a vested interest in promoting their roles. I also repeat the observations that sources taking a general view of the Obokata scandal do not even mention Lee or RG, and that Lee's review was posted on RG a month after Riken Institute started investigating Obokata. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonlet: I agree that the section should be shortened. I would keep parts though, as researchgate emphasized the "publish negative results" goal, if I'm not mistaken; and you can find the RG version of the story on [15]: so they did make a huge fuzz about it themselves (this may be a better source than this secondary or tertiary GigaOM source). I would call all this a marketing stunt, though; and I would like to see your links in the article, showing that RG was actually not the place where this thing got started. This is also an interesting (but japanese) source. I can't read a single word Japanese, but judging from Google Translate, there are plagiarism and other concerns, too. [16] - and this blog appears to have started in february, so before the RG story, too. --Chire (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A press release is an WP:SPS, especially if its primary purpose is self-promotion, as it is in this case. An article, even in a RS, that uncritically parrots such a press release is really not much better. I would say that the GigaOM and Wired sources can be cited to show that Lee and RG claim to have played an important role in the Obokata scandal, but not to show that they are correct. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I would use the primary source, to show that RG made the claim to have "discovered" this issue. And I would use other sources to show that the claim has in fact been already made a month earlier elsewhere ... --Chire (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's give JNorman704 a chance to respond, but I would be in favor of you taking action as you just described. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

An overview of the issue with some sources and context can be found on Stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency cell#Investigation into disputed claims (probably written by people with some more knowledge in medicine). Surprise: it doesn't mention RG, and from the timeline, RG was late to the party anyway ... Maybe we can mostly link to this section, and mention that RG claims to have triggered this, but it in fact started much earlier (and is not surprising, give Ioannidis results). No need to use the GigaOM references, we can link to the Wikipedia article on STAP cells. --Chire (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Good find. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Just made a few edits to add a bit more detail to this story and remove one 'citation needed,' as the part of the sentence requiring citation didn't seem necessary. JNorman704 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You removed a lot of details in addition to adding a few. I'll be restoring those, though also keeping some of your new material.

I thought the "citation needed" statement you removed was also useful in fleshing out why RG's role is important. I had added both the language and the tag, hoping that someone else would do the legwork of finding a citation. I'll restore that also for now. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonlet:: Thanks for your edits but I think this still needs work. The following sentence you reinstated reads to me as a subjective (and somewhat damning) interpretation of the ResearchGate blog post cited: "ResearchGate thus claimed to have played a role in the debunking of the study,[15] though an investigation into irregularities in that study pre-dated the action on ResearchGate by a month." You are connecting two things in a way that implies ResearchGate is trying to take the credit for blowing the lid off the study's irregularities before anyone else did, and RG makes no such claim in this post. The post acknowledges that "recent events have highlighted the need for an alternate system for peer review," that the Nature study "made headlines worldwide in January when it was published," and that researcher Lee and his team were "the first to publish proof" of the Nature study's finding being irreproducible. Yes, RG is claiming to have played a role in the debunking of the study, but other media sources, such as GigaOM and Wired.co.uk, seem to agree with them that they did in fact play a role vs. just 'claiming' to play a role. BTW, GigaOM is indeed a credible news source; check out their About us page http://about.gigaom.com. So is Wired.

I believe my original edit states essentially the same thing as yours but in a neutral POV: "In March 2014, one researcher posted his results of a failed attempt to reproduce a landmark stem cell study on the discovery of STAP cells on ResearchGate." My edit also acknowledged that an investigation into irregularities of the study pre-dated the action on ResearchGate by one month. Any others following this page, please weigh in if you're so inclined. JNorman704 (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. I removed the statement that RG "claimed to have played a role in the debunking of the study" and moved the mention of the investigation to a less prominent place, from which it still gives context to what happened on RG. I hope this satisfies your concerns. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

From the RG blog on the topic [17]: "Stem Cell Nature study debunked with Open Review", "We’re proud to share Professor Lee’s groundbreaking review with you", "Now they’re the first to publish proof of it with Open Review" (emphasis added). While technically correct - they are the first to publish with RG Open Review, they definitely try to claim to have "debunked" that research ("with Open Review", so there is the weasel word out to admit there have been other sites involved, too...); but they clearly aren't the first to share failed attempts of reproducing it (see: blogs). --Chire (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonlet: Good job on the rewording! I feel it gets the points across but in a fair, balanced way. JNorman704 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)