Home  ›  How to Access Research Request Again in Researchgate

How to Access Research Request Again in Researchgate

Written By Tuesday, April 5, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Scientific social network (launched 2008)

ResearchGate
ResearchGate Logo.png

Type of site

 Social network service for scientists
Available in English
Area served Worldwide
Owner ResearchGate GmbH
Created past
  • Ijad Madisch
  • Sören Hofmayer
  • Horst Fickenscher
Industry Cyberspace
URL www.researchgate.net
Users Increase 17 one thousand thousand (May 2020[update])[one]
Launched May 2008 (13 years ago)  (2008-05)
Current status agile

ResearchGate is a European commercial social networking site for scientists and researchers[two] to share papers, ask and answer questions, and observe collaborators.[3] According to a 2022 study by Nature and a 2022 article in Times College Didactics, it is the largest bookish social network in terms of active users,[4] [5] although other services have more registered users, and a 2015–2016 survey suggests that almost every bit many academics have Google Scholar profiles.[half-dozen]

While reading articles does not require registration, people who wish to become site members demand to have an email address at a recognized institution or to be manually confirmed as a published researcher in gild to sign up for an account.[7] Members of the site each have a user profile and can upload research output including papers, data, chapters, negative results, patents, enquiry proposals, methods, presentations, and software source code. Users may also follow the activities of other users and appoint in discussions with them. Users are also able to cake interactions with other users.

The site has been criticized for sending unsolicited e-mail invitations to coauthors of the manufactures listed on the site that were written to appear equally if the email messages were sent by the other coauthors of the manufactures (a practice the site said information technology had discontinued every bit of Nov 2016[8]) and for automatically generating apparent profiles for non-users who have sometimes felt misrepresented past them.[5] A study found that over half of the uploaded papers appear to infringe copyright, because the authors uploaded the publisher'south version.[9]

Features [edit]

The New York Times described the site as a mashup of Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.[3] Site members may "follow" a research interest, in add-on to post-obit other private members.[10] It has a blogging characteristic for users to write short reviews on peer-reviewed articles.[10] ResearchGate indexes self-published information on user profiles to advise members to connect with others who accept similar interests.[iii] When a member posts a question, information technology is fielded to others that have identified on their user contour that they take a relevant expertise.[xi] It as well has individual chat rooms where users can share information, edit shared documents, or discuss confidential topics.[12] The site besides features a inquiry-focused job lath.[xiii]

As of 2018[update], information technology has more than 15 million users,[1] with its largest user-bases coming from Europe and Northward America.[fourteen] About of ResearchGate's users are involved in medicine or biology,[x] [12] though it also has participants from applied science, informatics, agricultural sciences, and psychology, among others.[10]

ResearchGate publishes an author-level metric in the form of an "RG Score". RG score is not a commendation impact mensurate. RG Scores accept been reported to be correlated with existing author-level metrics, but have also been criticized equally having questionable reliability and an unknown calculation methodology.[fifteen] [sixteen] [17] [xviii] ResearchGate does not charge fees for putting content on the site and does non crave peer review.[xix]

History [edit]

ResearchGate was founded in 2008[11] by virologist Dr. Ijad Madisch, who remains the company'south CEO,[4] [3] with physician Dr. Sören Hofmayer, and computer scientist Horst Fickenscher.[xiii] Information technology started in Boston, Massachusetts, and moved to Berlin, Germany, before long afterwards.[14]

The company'due south first round of funding, in 2010, was led by the venture capital firm Benchmark.[20] Criterion partner Matt Cohler became a member of the board and participated in the decision to movement to Berlin.[21]

According to The New York Times, the website began with few features, and then was developed further based on input from scientists.[iii] From 2009 to 2011, the number of users of the site grew from 25,000 to more than 1 million.[12]

A 2nd round of funding led by Peter Thiel'due south Founders Fund was announced in February 2012.[21] On June 4, 2013, information technology closed Series C financing arrangements for $35M from investors including Nib Gates.[22] [23]

The company grew from 12 employees in 2011 to 120 in 2014.[iii] [14] It currently has nearly 300 employees, including a sales staff of 100.[24]

ResearchGate's competitors include Academia.edu, Google Scholar and Mendeley.[4] In 2022 Academia.edu reportedly had more registered users (about 34 meg versus 11 million[24]) and college web traffic, only ResearchGate was substantially larger in terms of agile usage by researchers.[4] [5] The fact that ResearchGate restricts its user accounts to people at recognized institutions and published researchers may explain the disparity in active usage, every bit a high percentage of the accounts on Academia.edu are lapsed or inactive.[4] [5] In a 2015-2016 survey of bookish profile tools, about as many respondents have ResearchGate profiles and Google Scholar profiles, merely about twice equally many respondents use Google Scholar for search than use ResearchGate for accessing publications.[6]

Madisch has said the company'south business strategy is focused on highly targeted advertising based on assay of the activities of users, saying "Imagine you could click on a microscope mentioned in a paper and purchase information technology", and estimating the spending on science at $ane trillion per twelvemonth under the control of a "relatively small number of people".[4]

In Nov 2022 they acquired additional funding of $52.6 million from a range of investors including Goldman Sachs, Benchmark Capital, Wellcome Trust and Bill Gates, only did non announce this until Feb 2017.[25] [26] Losses increased from €five.4m in 2022 to €6.2m in 2015, but ResearchGate'south CEO expressed optimism that they would break fifty-fifty eventually.[27]

Reception [edit]

A 2009 article in BusinessWeek reported that ResearchGate was a "potentially powerful link" in promoting innovation in developing countries past connecting scientists from those nations with their peers in industrialized nations.[28] It said the website had become popular largely due to its ease of utilise. It also said that ResearchGate had been involved in several notable cross-land collaborations between scientists that led to substantive developments.[28]

Bookish reception of ResearchGate remains generally positive, as recent reviews of extant literature show an accepting audition with broad coverage of concepts.[29] A 2012 paper published in The International Information & Library Review conducted a survey with 160 respondents and reported that out of those respondents using social networking "for academic purposes", Facebook and ResearchGate were the near popular at the University of Delhi, but also "a bulk of respondents said using SNSs [Social Networking Sites] may exist a waste of time".[thirty]

Although ResearchGate is used internationally, its uptake—as of 2014—is uneven, with Brazil having particularly many users and China having few when compared to the number of publishing researchers.[15]

In a 2022 report past Nature, 88 percent of the responding scientists and engineers said that they were aware of ResearchGate[five] : Q1 and would use it when "contacted", just less than 10% said they would use it to actively discuss inquiry with forty% instead preferring to use Twitter when discussing research.[5] ResearchGate was visited regularly by one-half of those surveyed by Nature, coming second to Google Scholar. 29 percent of regular visitors had signed up for a profile on ResearchGate in the by year,[v] and 35% of the survey participants were invited by electronic mail.[5]

A 2022 commodity in Times Higher Educational activity reported that in a global survey of 20,670 people who use bookish social networking sites, ResearchGate was the dominant network and was twice as popular as others: 61 percent of respondents who had published at least ane paper had a ResearchGate contour.[4] Another study reported that "relatively few academics announced to postal service questions and answers", but instead utilize it only as an "online CV".[18]

In the context of the big bargain cancellations past several library systems in the earth, the wide usage of ResearchGate was credited equally one of the factors which reduced the apparent value of the subscriptions to price access resource.[31] Data assay tools similar Unpaywall Journals, used by libraries to calculate the existent costs and value of their options before such decisions,[32] allow to divide ResearchGate from open athenaeum like institutional repositories, which are considered more than stable.

Criticism [edit]

ResearchGate had been rigorously criticized past many users for its decision to not remove bedevilled sex offenders from its social networking site. Many researchers deleted their business relationship in protest as they refused to remove convicted kid pornographer and registered sex offender in Canada, Ben Levin as a user. Identified on ResearchGate equally "Research Ben", he had been a frequent user of ResearchGate, publishing over lxxx papers of interest with the vast majority dealing with studies around child pornography and pedophiles.[33]

ResearchGate has been criticized for emailing unsolicited invitations to the coauthors of its users.[5] : Q2 [34] These emails were written as if they were personally sent by the user, but were instead sent automatically unless the user opted out,[5] : Q3 [35] which caused some researchers to boycott the service[5] : Q4 and contributes to the negative view of ResearchGate in the scientific community.[5] : Q5, Q7 As of November 2016,[36] the site appears to have discontinued this practice.[8] The TechCrunch moderator Mike Butcher accused ResearchGate of having scraped competitors' websites for email addresses to spam, which the ResearchGate CEO denied.[27]

A study published past the Association for Information Systems in 2022 found that a fallow business relationship on ResearchGate, using default settings, generated 297 invitations to 38 people over a 16-month period, and that the user profile was automatically attributed to more than 430 publications.[35] Furthermore, journalists and researchers establish that the RG score, calculated by ResearchGate via a proprietary algorithm,[35] can achieve high values nether questionable circumstances.[35] [37]

Several studies have looked at the RG score, for which details nearly how information technology is calculated are not published. These studies concluded that the RG score was "intransparent and irreproducible",[17] criticized the way it incorporates the periodical impact factor into the user score, and suggested that it should "non be considered in the evaluation of academics".[17] The results were confirmed in a second "response" study, which also institute the score to depend mostly on periodical impact factors.[eighteen] The RG score was constitute to be negatively correlated with network centrality,[38] i.e., that users that are the nigh active (and thus central to the network) on ResearchGate ordinarily do not have high RG scores. It was too constitute to be strongly positively correlated with Quacquarelli Symonds university rankings at the institutional level, but just weakly with Elsevier SciVal rankings of individual authors.[16] While it was found to exist correlated with different university rankings, the correlation in betwixt these rankings themselves was higher.[xv]

Nature as well reported that "Some of the apparent profiles on the site are not owned by real people, but are created automatically – and incompletely – by scraping details of people's affiliations, publication records and PDFs, if available, from around the web. That annoys researchers who do not desire to be on the site, and who experience that the pages misrepresent them – especially when they observe that ResearchGate will not take down the pages when asked."[five] : Q6, Q7 ResearchGate uses a crawler to find PDF versions of manufactures on the homepages of authors and publishers.[five] : Q6 These are then presented every bit if they had been uploaded to the web site past the author:[five] : Q7, Q8 the PDF volition exist displayed embedded in a frame, and only the button label "External Download" indicates that the file was in fact non uploaded to ResearchGate.[ commendation needed ]

ResearchGate has also been criticized for failing to provide safeguards confronting "the dark side of academic writing", including such phenomena as fake publishers, "ghost journals", publishers with "predatory" publication fees, and simulated impact ratings.[39]

Information technology has also been criticized for copyright infringement of published works.[xl] [9] [41]

In September 2017, lawyers representing the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM) sent a letter to ResearchGate threatening legal action against them for copyright infringement and enervating them to alter their handling of uploaded manufactures to include pre-release checking for copyright violations and "Specifically, [for ResearchGate to] end its extraction of content from hosted manufactures and the modification of any hosted content, including any and all metadata. Information technology would also mean an terminate to Researchgate's own copying and downloading of published journal article content and the creation of internal databases of articles."[42] [43] [44] This was followed by an announcement that takedown requests are to exist issued to ResearchGate for copyright infringement relating to millions of articles.[45] [46] [47] [48] [49] A statement supporting the activity was issued past a group chosen Coalition for Responsible Sharing, and the statement was signed past the American Chemical Society, Brill Publishers, Elsevier, Wiley, and Wolters Kluwer.[50] Subsequently, Coalition for Responsible Sharing (CfRS) reported that "ResearchGate has removed from public view a meaning number of copyrighted articles information technology is hosting on its site".[51] CfRS as well confirmed that "not all violations have been addressed" and every bit such, takedown notices take been issued.[52]

ResearchGate has managed to achieve an agreement on commodity uploading with three other major publishers, Springer Nature, Cambridge University Printing and Thieme. Under the agreement, the publishers will exist notified when their articles are uploaded but will not exist able to premoderate uploads.[53]

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b "ResearchGate turns 12". ResearchGate. Archived from the original on 2018-08-01. Retrieved 2020-08-12 .
  2. ^ Office of Scholarly Communication (December 2016). "A social networking site is not an open access repository". University of California. Archived from the original on 2016-07-11. Retrieved 2016-12-03 .
  3. ^ a b c d e f Lin, Thomas (17 January 2012). "Cracking open the scientific process". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2013-12-06. Retrieved 2014-06-26 .
  4. ^ a b c d due east f thousand Matthews, David (7 Apr 2018). "Do academic social networks share academics' interests?". Times Higher Education. Archived from the original on 2016-04-17. Retrieved 2016-04-22 .
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j one thousand l m n o Van Noorden, Richard (xiii August 2014). "Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network". Nature. 512 (7513): 126–129. Bibcode:2014Natur.512..126V. doi:10.1038/512126a. PMID 25119221.
    Quote i: ResearchGate is certainly well-known [...] More than 88% of scientists and engineers said that they were aware of information technology.
    Quote 2: "They do send y'all a lot of spam," Billie Swalla says
    Quote 3: [...] regularly sending out automated e-mails that profess to come from colleagues active on the site
    Quote 4: "I think information technology is a disgraceful kind of marketing and I am choosing not to use their service because of that", [Lars Arvestad] says
    Quote v: "I've met basically no academics in my field with a favourable view of ResearchGate", says Daniel MacArthur
    Quote 6: Some of the apparent profiles on the site are not endemic by real people, but are created automatically – and incompletely – by scraping details of people'south affiliations, publication records and PDFs
    Quote vii: That annoys researchers who do non desire to be on the site, and who feel that the pages misrepresent them – especially when they discover that ResearchGate will not take down the pages when asked.
    Quote 8: [Madisch] will not say how many of [the papers available on ResearchGate] take been automatically scraped from freely accessible places elsewhere.
  6. ^ a b Innovations in Scholarly Communication. 2016. Universiteit Utrecht, accessed 2016-12-02. Archived 2016-12-09 at the Wayback Car.
  7. ^ "Signing up for ResearchGate: My electronic mail address isn't recognized. Can I still sign up?". ResearchGate. Archived from the original on 2016-04-xi. Retrieved 2016-04-23 .
  8. ^ a b "Inviting colleagues to ResearchGate". ResearchGate. Archived from the original on 2016-12-03. Retrieved 2016-12-02 .
  9. ^ a b Jamali, Hamid R. (xvi February 2017). "Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text periodical articles". Scientometrics. 112 (ane): 241–254. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2291-four. ISSN 0138-9130. S2CID 27138477.
  10. ^ a b c d Diane Rasmussen Neal (6 August 2012). Social Media for Academics: A Practical Guide. Elsevier Science. p. 28. ISBN978-ane-78063-319-0.
  11. ^ a b Hardy, Quentin (3 Baronial 2012). "Failure Is the Next Opportunity". Archived from the original on 2017-09-xviii. Retrieved 2014-06-26 .
  12. ^ a b c Crawford, Mark (2011). "Biologists Using Social-networking Sites to Boost Collaboration". BioScience. 61 (9): 736. doi:x.1525/bio.2011.61.9.xviii. ISSN 0006-3568.
  13. ^ a b "About u.s.". ResearchGate. Archived from the original on 2016-04-08. Retrieved 2016-04-09 .
  14. ^ a b c Scott, Mark (17 Apr 2014). "Europeans look beyond their borders". Archived from the original on 2015-09-08. Retrieved 2014-06-26 .
  15. ^ a b c Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K. (2014). "ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship?" (PDF). Journal of the Association for Computer science and Technology. 66 (5): 876–889. CiteSeerX10.1.1.589.5396. doi:10.1002/asi.23236. S2CID 8974197. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2018-02-xviii. Retrieved 2018-07-30 .
  16. ^ a b Yu, Min-Chun (February 2016). "ResearchGate: An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers?". Computers in Human Behavior. 55: 1001–1006. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.007.
  17. ^ a b c Kraker, P., & Lex, E. A Critical Expect at the ResearchGate Score equally a Measure out of Scientific Reputation. Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web (ASCW'15)
  18. ^ a b c Hashemite kingdom of jordan, Katy (2015). Exploring the ResearchGate score every bit an academic metric: Reflections and implications for practice. Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web (ASCW'15).
  19. ^ Dolan, Kerry A. (19 July 2012). "How Ijad Madisch Aims To Disrupt Science Research With A Social Network". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2012-08-22. Retrieved 2012-08-09 .
  20. ^ "ResearchGate brings in strong funding round for 'scientific Facebook'". The Guardian. 2010. Archived from the original on 2014-12-07. Retrieved 2010-08-09 .
  21. ^ a b Imbert, Marguerite (22 February 2012). "Founders Fund invests in the Facebook for scientists: Founder Ijad Madisch on conviction, Luke Nosek, and what the world needs more of". VentureVillage. Archived from the original on 26 August 2013.
  22. ^ "Neb Gates, Benchmark And More Pour $35M Into ResearchGate, The Social Network For Scientists". TechCrunch. 4 June 2013. Archived from the original on 2013-06-08. Retrieved 2013-06-08 .
  23. ^ Yeung, Ken (four June 2013). "'Facebook for scientists' ResearchGate raises $35M led by Bill Gates and prepares to release an API". The Next Web. Archived from the original on 2018-09-05. Retrieved 2018-06-18 .
  24. ^ a b Satariano, Adam (15 November 2016). "Bill Gates-Backed Research Network Targets Advertizement Acquirement". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 2016-11-30. Retrieved 2016-11-29 .
  25. ^ Scott, Marking (28 February 2017). "A Facebook-Style Shift in How Science Is Shared". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 2017-03-01. Retrieved 2017-03-01 .
  26. ^ "ResearchGate announces $52m investment". Research Data. Archived from the original on 2017-03-01. Retrieved 2017-03-01 .
  27. ^ a b Perez, Sarah. "ResearchGate CEO denies scraping accounts from rival site to generate sign-ups". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2017-12-08. Retrieved 2017-12-08 .
  28. ^ a b Hamm, Steve (7 December 2009). "ResearchGATE and its Savvy utilise of the Web". BusinessWeek. Archived from the original on 2009-12-13. Retrieved 2014-06-26 .
  29. ^ Williams, Ann (2016). "The possibilities and perils of academic social networking sites". Online Information Review. 40 (two): 282–294. doi:ten.1108/OIR-x-2015-0327.
  30. ^ Madhusudhan, Margam (2012). "Use of social networking sites by research scholars of the University of Delhi: A study". The International Information & Library Review. 44 (2): 100–113. doi:10.1016/j.iilr.2012.04.006. ISSN 1057-2317.
  31. ^ Fernández-Ramos, Andrés; Rodríguez Bravo, María Blanca; Alvite Díez, María Luisa; Santos de Paz, Lourdes; Morán Suárez, María Antonia; Gallego Lorenzo, Josefa; Olea Merino, Isabel (2019). "Evolution of the big deals employ in the public universities of the Castile and Leon region, Spain = Evolución del uso de los large deals en las universidades públicas de Castilla y León". El profesional de la información (in Spanish). 28 (half-dozen). doi:10.3145/epi.2019.nov.19.
  32. ^ Denise Wolfe (2020-04-07). "SUNY Negotiates New, Modified Agreement with Elsevier - Libraries News Centre University at Buffalo Libraries". library.buffalo.edu. University at Buffalo. Retrieved 2020-04-18 .
  33. ^ "MANDEL: Depraved world view of Ben Levin continues on parole | Toronto Dominicus". November sixteen, 2017.
  34. ^ "Beware of enemies masquerading as friends: ResearchGate and co". Swinburne Library Weblog. Swinburne University of Technology. 6 January 2014. Archived from the original on 10 Apr 2014. Retrieved 2014-04-10 . ResearchGate automatically emails invitations to your coauthors on your behalf. These invitations are made to expect as if they were sent past y'all but are emailed without your consent.
  35. ^ a b c d Meg Murray (2014). Analysis of a Scholarly Social Networking Site: The Case of the Fallow User. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Almanac Conference of the Southern Association for Data Systems (SAIS). Archived from the original on 2014-04-29. Retrieved 2014-04-29 .
  36. ^ ResearchGate, Page alter Archived 2016-12-02 at the Wayback Motorcar for page "Inviting colleagues to ResearchGate". ResearchGate official website. 10 November 2016. Retrieved 2017-ten-08.
  37. ^ "Ein Vergleich für Forscher unter sich: Der Researchgate Score" (in German). ix October 2012. Archived from the original on 2012-ten-28. Retrieved 2012-12-03 .
  38. ^ Hoffmann, C. P.; Lutz, C.; Meckel, M. (2016). "A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate equally an indicator of scientific affect" (PDF). Journal of the Association for Information Scientific discipline and Technology. 67 (4): 765–775. doi:10.1002/asi.23423. S2CID 7769870.
  39. ^ Memon, Aamir Raoof (December 2016). "ResearchGate is no longer reliable: leniency towards ghost journals may decrease its bear upon on the scientific community" (PDF). Journal of Pakistan Medical Association. 66 (12): 1643–1647. PMID 27924967. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-12-03. Retrieved 2016-12-02 . ResearchGate more recently, has been lenient in its policies against this nighttime side of academic writing.
  40. ^ "Who Isn't Profiting Off the Backs of Researchers?". The Crux. 2017-02-01. Archived from the original on 2017-03-01. Retrieved 2017-03-01 .
  41. ^ "Illegal file hosting site, ResearchGate, acquires massive financial investment". Green Tea and Velociraptors. i March 2017. Archived from the original on 2017-09-xvi. Retrieved 2017-09-16 .
  42. ^ Lavizzari, Carlo Scollo (15 September 2017). "RE: STM proposal – RG platform to get consistent with usage and access rights for article sharing" (PDF). Lenz Caemmerer Attorneys and Notaries. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-eighteen – via Elsevier.
  43. ^ Singh Chawla, Dalmeet (20 September 2017). "Publishers go afterward networking site for illicit sharing of journal papers". Scientific discipline. AAAS. Archived from the original on 2017-09-twenty. Retrieved 2017-09-21 .
  44. ^ Tucker, David (sixteen September 2017). "Elsevier supports STM's constructive solution offered to ResearchGate on hosting research manufactures". Elsevier Connect. Archived from the original on 2017-09-17. Retrieved 2017-09-17 .
  45. ^ "Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate". Times Higher Pedagogy. 5 October 2017. Archived from the original on 2017-10-05. Retrieved 2017-10-05 .
  46. ^ "ResearchGate: Publishers Have Formal Steps to Force Copyright Compliance". The Scholarly Kitchen. 6 October 2017. Archived from the original on 2017-10-06. Retrieved 2017-ten-06 .
  47. ^ Kemsley, Jyllian; Widener, Andrea (9 Oct 2017). "Publishers taking legal action against ResearchGate to limit unlicensed newspaper sharing on networking site". Chemical & Engineering News. 95 (40). Archived from the original on 2017-10-06. Retrieved 6 October 2017.
  48. ^ Van Noorden, Richard (2017). "Publishers threaten to remove millions of papers from ResearchGate". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22793. Archived from the original on 2017-ten-10. Retrieved 2017-10-x .
  49. ^ "I Have a Lot of Questions: RG, ELS, SN, STM, and CRS". Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe. 2017-10-10. Archived from the original on 2017-10-10. Retrieved 2017-x-10 .
  50. ^ "Coalition Statement". Coalition for Responsible Sharing. 5 October 2017. Archived from the original on 2017-10-07. Retrieved 2017-x-06 .
  51. ^ "ResearchGate Removed Significant Number of Copyrighted Articles". Coalition for Responsible Sharing. Archived from the original on 2017-10-eleven. Retrieved 2017-ten-x .
  52. ^ "Coalition for Responsible Sharing issues take down notices to ResearchGate to accost remaining violations — Coalition for Responsible Sharing". Coalition for Responsible Sharing. Archived from the original on 2017-x-18. Retrieved 2017-x-eighteen .
  53. ^ Trager, Rebecca (25 April 2018). "ResearchGate reaches deal with science publishers". Chemistry World . Retrieved 29 October 2018.

External links [edit]

  • Official website Edit this at Wikidata
  • ACS v. ResearchGate GmbH court case docket

manleyjohe1973.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchGate

0 Response to "How to Access Research Request Again in Researchgate"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel