It would be a crime if a cover band of that name didn't already exist...

Bashing curcurbits would be a great name for a band...

Just at my institution. But a good opportunity (poo-portunity?) to make a #2 joke. :-)

Ray spiders (Theridiosoma gemmosum) are pretty cool too -- launch the whole web in direction of prey.

Video: movie.biologists.com/video/10.124...

"Directional web strikes are performed by ray spiders in response to airborne prey vibrations"
by Han and Blackledge (2024, JEB)
doi.org/10.1242/jeb....

I see that now. I think the Nature Index may have given too much of a spotlight on a random text-processing preprint.

And yet the Google Scholar team will give you 100% of the credit and her only 90%. Penalizing the lead? I just don't get it.

Apparently they first look for * and ^ to identify (possibly multiple) corresponding and lead authors (where the "lead" author doesn't get full credit for the paper!). But when alphabetizing, there are no symbols for second/third/fourth author distinction but they still weigh them differently!

Holistic metrics like that would certainly be more informative/interesting/interpretable than these individual-paper-based metrics. Still not perfect but clearly a better place to start the discussion. Sh-index is an unwanted modification of h-index -- almost optimizing for bad.

It's funny that because this weird Sh-index (which sounds like a scatological reference) gives the corresponding/senior author more credit than the lead author, effectively penalizing the one doing most of the typing!

Apparently they first look for * and ^ to identify (possibly multiple) corresponding and lead authors (where the "lead" author doesn't get full credit for the paper!). But when alphabetizing (for example), there are no symbols to sort out the second/third/fourth author weighting. CRediT ignored too.

A compromise might be trust but verify -- if the standard h-index triggers a p-value threshold for career stage and discipline, then maybe drill down into a few of those CRediT statements (but not necessarily all). An "Sh-index" is going to be worse than h by being even more cryptic.

It really exposes fundamental flaws in the medium, which wears the legacy shackles of a print medium with a "byline" that is linear by definition. P&T committees don't have time to read CRediT statements but they also worry about being too generous by giving every author the benefit of the doubt.

Redundant. Something about the airiness of wire-frame base that serves as both structure and ornament... I mean, the costume writes itself.