|
Interesting post.
I'd also highlight using novel methods in addition to just novel data... namely novel methods that open up your ability to address some interesting question. And # of interesting papers I'd say are clearly more important than timely papers or quantity (well I'd say timeliness can contribute to a topic being interesting, but it's neither necessary nor sufficient)
I don't think recognition when co-authoring is as potentially troublesome as in pure sciences, where you more often have long lists of authors.
|