There is still so much more to explore about hyperphantasia (read the alt text in the above images for more info). I hope this article and others can highlight this unique fantastic experience! 4/4

2. The idea that most kids have hyperphantasia but it's not usually carried forward into adulthood. When kids go through adolescence and focus less on fantasy, their mental imagery is reduced - a.k.a., "use it or lose it". Those who keep their hyperphantasia never abandoned their fantasies. 3/4

1. That hyperphantasia, like aphantasia, is more than just a number on a vividness scale. It is a multidimensional construct that includes having immersive fantasy worlds and potentially maladaptive daydreaming. 2/4

What is "importance"? I argue it is time spent on a project, in which case they do correlate. If someone spends less time on it because they contribute less, they can publish more - should smaller contributions be worth *more* than larger ones? Bc this is the current system.

According to this, a metric based on contributorship would generally give a similar weighting as the Google one (though would account better for exceptions & field-specific nuances)

Thanks for the ref, though this also shows that first author does the most work in virtually all disciplines, followed by senior (see Fig.6). I'm not arguing abt the importance of middle authors, they deserve authorship, but it is usually less work to be a middle author in any field

If you can see the balance of how much an author collaborates vs. had the primary/senior position, it can actually highlight those collabs, or reveal a potentially problematic imbalance. I'm happy to hijack the metric to get insights I think are important. We don't have to use it as Google intended.

We already do - it is almost unheard of for an academic researcher NOT to have a Google scholar profile. It's already very much ingrained in our research cultures. But we don't need to (and shouldn't) accept it uncritically. I don't think any good scientist does that anyway (admin is another story)

If you can see the balance of how much an author collaborates vs. had the primary/senior position, it can actually highlight those collabs, or reveal a potentially problematic imbalance. I'm happy to hijack the metric to get insights I think are important. We don't have to use it as Google intended.

And if the final calculation by the algorithm is disregarded, it still provides a nifty summary of an author's position across all their papers, so you can see the distribution of primary/senior/collaborator authorship, which tells you more than a single h-index

I'm not advocating this as a perfect metric or one that should be used across all disciplines (I just heard about it an hour ago), but as a small lab PI myself this metric definitely highlights my own contributions better than the typical h-index.

Sometimes, but sometimes they are thrown in the middle so the practice goes under the radar (I've seen it more in western authorship, where co-authors may be more likely to protest).

On the point of collabs, there are many people who are on 10-20 papers a year as a stats adviser - did they do more work than the PI who published 2-3 papers that year as senior? This metric should balance that out a bit too. Collabs are important but not MORE valuable than being primary/senior.

I mean within-group pubs where superfluous authors may be added just bc of group inclusion. Or heads of institutes that insist on being on every institute-affiliated paper (without even reading it or meeting the co-authors).

If I'm one of several PIs, there is some dispersion of responsibility & it's easier than being the only PI, so I'm generally OK with this metric. It could be good for small labs with little funding and slow science to be recognized. It may also "punish" megalabs a bit.

I am a sucker for an interesting study, and will almost always accept something that I just want to read, even if I don't have a lot of time. But when 90% of what comes my way is lazy or poor quality, I have to wonder what editors are doing - are there any quality checks anymore? 2/