More than half of researchers now use AI for peer review — often against guidance A survey of 1,600 academics found that more than 50% have used artificial-intelligence tools while peer reviewing manuscripts.

More than half of researchers now use AI for peer review — often against guidance www.nature.com/articles/d41...

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.

A Sunday morning Data Wrangling Exercise...

Gaurav Sharma and I discussed what this new Sh-Index means. Post-preprint and now featured in Nature Index, there has been vocal criticism and rightly so. We discussed again and I have been using it not actually intended. Also.. 🧵 1/8

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.

Despite the negative feelings about this, I sense some complementary metric like this that measures leadership vs collaboration would be very informative

Unearned authorship pervades science Research-integrity survey also suggests that there is a split in US- and Europe-based researchers’ perceptions of ‘questionable research practices’.

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...

Unearned authorship pervades science Research-integrity survey also suggests that there is a split in US- and Europe-based researchers’ perceptions of ‘questionable research practices’.

It is worth reading too in this context:

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

Google Scholar tool gives extra credit to first and last authors Researchers welcome the initiative, but say it doesn’t go far enough to capture the nuance of researcher productivity and impact.

This sh index will give something for researchers to argue about for the next few months.

Like h index, but extra points for the first & last authors.

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...

Google Scholar tool gives extra credit to first and last authors Researchers welcome the initiative, but say it doesn’t go far enough to capture the nuance of researcher productivity and impact.

𝘩-index, a popular measure of impact based on publications and citations over time, treats all of an author’s papers equally, regardless of their position on the paper. GScholarLens, a browser extension, aims to change this for Google Scholar users. #AcademicChatter www.nature.com/articles/d41...

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.

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...

Unearned authorship pervades science Research-integrity survey also suggests that there is a split in US- and Europe-based researchers’ perceptions of ‘questionable research practices’.

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.

Google Scholar tool gives extra credit to first and last authors Researchers welcome the initiative, but say it doesn’t go far enough to capture the nuance of researcher productivity and impact.

this is cool: Google Scholar extension that automates what many people already do when viewing a profile: adjusting the metrics

eg if a person is 27th author on a paper w/ 10K cites....probably that should be downweighted

metrics suck but they aren't going anywhere, so may as well use better ones

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

2️⃣ We all know the h-index and citation counts aren’t going anywhere.
And yes — many love to boast about them 😅

Are you not a bit tired of hearing about that too? This is why we propose an authorship-normalized index and adjusted citations in this proof-of-concept framework.

4/n

1️⃣We are not extracting authorship via text mining from full papers as journals differ too much in formatting.

👉First, mark your First/co-first authors with ^ sign and Corresponding/co-corresponding with * sign in your Google Scholar profile (like your CV).
Once done, the tool works seamlessly.

3/n

Access the Tool here: project.iith.ac.in/sharmaglab/g...
Read the Preprint: arxiv.org/abs/2509.04124

Thanks to everyone who commented, positively and critically, on our recent open-science tool, #GScholarLens on @twiter.bsky.social and @bsky.app.

Let me clarify a few things in this thread 👇

2/n

Google Scholar tool gives extra credit to first and last authors Researchers welcome the initiative, but say it doesn’t go far enough to capture the nuance of researcher productivity and impact.

Our lab’s open-science tool, GScholarLens, has been featured by @nature.com, beautifully written by Dalmeet Chawla @dalmeet.bsky.social.
The article highlights how it brings transparency to scientific metrics using authorship weightage.

Link: www.nature.com/articles/d41...

1/n