- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 7,471
- Reaction score
- 2,424
I don't know.... because of the work and dedication that goes into a basic science paper, that applicant likely has a better understanding of research and would be productive in a clinical research context as well. Perhaps more than someone who jumped on a few clinical projects that they didn't understand just to get publications on their CV.I actually agree with you - I meant more that if any PDs actually are using just research numbers as their main evaluation metric, then they’re clearly trying to select for a specific kind of productivity that may not be met by someone doing only basic science. I don’t think that’s a good thing, and I don’t even know if it’s actually common at all. But someone who is more sophisticated about evaluating research (hopefully far more PDs) will definitely recognize the value of a good basic science pub.
So I suspect the PDs that you're describing are actually pretty rare.