evaluating publication record

[chef]

---

Members do not see this ad.

folks, how good are these publication records? I don't know how difficult or how good the research has to be to publish in these journals, so your help would be great. Are either of them top notch labs, at least in terms of publication records, in terms of quality of journals and # of papers/yr? (I know there are many other factors in determining a good lab)

Lab A
2002
J Biol Chem
Neuron
J Biol Chem
J Biol Chem
J Cell Biol
Mol Cell Biol
2001
J Am Soc Nephrol
Mol Biol Cell
J Cell Biol
Nat Cell Biol

Lab B
2002
Dev Cell
Eukaryot Cell
J Biol Chem
Curr Opin Cell Biol
J Biol Chem
J Biol Chem
J Biol Chem
2001
Mol Biol Cell
Microbiol Mol Biol Rev
Traffic
Mol Cell
J Biol Chem
J Cell Biol
J Biol Chem
J Cell Biol

 

[Doctor&Geek]

Remember, follow JPaikman's collected word of advice #4 and #5

4] Go to the place, no matter what the reputation, where you know you will be interested in the work and will succeed.

5] That being said, there are two types of labs you'd ideally want to join; the new faculty member who will depend totally on you to make or break him [and get on all of his papers], and the established famous guy whose work is good enough to get you in Cell/Nature/Science.

=========================================

When evaluating labs, its easy just look at how often they get into big journals. Sounds like both labs are big, unless you're including publications with which they collaborate with other labs.

Only evaluate those papers which have their guy as co-first author or they're the corresponding author.

Lab A has a Neuron paper [any better, and it goes to Cell] and a Nature Cell Biology [good quality]

Lab B has a Molecular Cell paper [again, any better, and it goes to Cell], but that's about it for really good stuff.

Caveat: famous guys get crap papers into good journals all of the time. Just because it's in EMBO J or Science or Nature or PNAS doesn't mean it belongs there.

Yours,

Jason