Let’s talk sometime. We can think of doing it together.

This is doable but I hope you understand that they have to give this custom weights for each of their paper, which is a bulky user task.

bsky.app/profile/shar...
Please see this. It will help.

This is a fair point. However, if we do such modifications in our offline CVs, why we cannot do it for our online CV? From tool point of view (speed and efficiency), extracting information is too tough.

worth reading about how authorships are attributed. Almost 70% of researchers based in Europe say that they have been involved in projects in the past three years that listed authors who did not contribute sufficiently to the work.
Rules must change! We must change!

www.nature.com/articles/d41...

It is worth reading too in this context:

www.nature.com/articles/d41...

You may try using it once more after reading this. If you don’t find it interesting even then, I will rest my case 😎

bsky.app/profile/shar...

bsky.app/profile/shar...

Thanks for posting about this. FYI this tool is not punishing co-first and co-corresponding authors. An author has to update the information on GS about who are the all first or all corresponding. Once they have done it, GScholarLens works efficiently. I hope it helps.

Thanks for giving it a better name 😂. All indexes are flawed, we data analytics people can help in making them less flawed.

Please check this so that you can use it in a better manner and give your suggestions.

bsky.app/profile/shar...

Completely true. Data analytics can help a bit in improving them and making them less flawed.

Thank you for writing about this. The Sh-index is normalised & more informative than h-index. A small difference between Sh- & h-index suggests active involvement in lead projects, while a large drop indicates citations mainly from coauthored rather than lead contributions.

bsky.app/profile/shar...

www.nature.com/articles/d41...

Almost 70% of researchers based in Europe say that they have been involved in projects in the past three years that listed authors who did not contribute sufficiently to the work.

Thanks for your comment. Yes, it doesn’t check for field variability. That is why we are saying it to use only for those fields where author positions matter.

bsky.app/profile/shar...

Thank you for being a positive reviewer of this tool. We have already answered some of your questions. Please check this thread.

We’ll continue refining #GScholarLens and addressing your feedback.
Appreciate the discussion — that’s how open science should work. 💡
Stay tuned, and keep questioning constructively! 🙌

8/n

5️⃣ Why do corresponding authors get 10% more weightage than first authors?
-Because they usually:
-Secure funding
-Guide research direction
-Ensure integrity
-Handle post-publication issues (including retractions)

This aligns with ICMJE & CRediT roles defining their leadership & accountability.

7/n

4️⃣ Some researchers lead fewer projects but collaborate widely. Shouldn’t there be a balance between lead and collaborative works? If you agree, this tool is for you.

If not, that’s fine too, it’s all about perspective.
GScholarLens visualizes this balance and the citations earned in each role.

6/n

3️⃣ Let’s be clear — no metric can judge quality.
We completely agree with this too.

#GScholarLens doesn’t claim to assess quality — it only adds context to how authors contribute across papers and how balanced they are.

5/n