How are clinical vs. basic sci pubs viewed? And better to prioritize 1st author?

[Guest]

Hi, there are a couple labs I'm looking at. One can give me a few 1st author clinical pubs e.g. 3-5 and a maybe like 5 co-authors on mostly clinical, maybe 1 basic sci or translational.

Another can give like 1 very good basic sci pub, and a few co author on clinical pubs or basic sci.

The last lab just cranks out a bunch of clinical pubs, so like 20+, but they would all be co-authors, maybe 1-2 first author

[Guest]

One solid basic science paper in a well respected journal will be worth more than any number of clinical studies.

[Guest]

Bit of a chicken and egg problem. I agree that one notable first-author paper in a good journal wins, but many people still respect volume. I ask applicants a variant of: "What project are you the most proud of?". Try to have a good answer to that and a decent number of publications to please people of the alternate view.

For your career - science contribution is one or two papers (tumor/functional model), clinical contribution is based on volume (spine style).

[Guest]

^this comment should be on every single thread.