What makes a research scholar more impressive, few publications showing independent research or multiple collaborative publications with n number of authors, many affiliations?
Its a dilemma for any researcher to go for number of publications collaborating with n number of authors in different affiliations or few independent good quality publication revealing the purity of idea. So I welcome the thoughts of the recruiters/experts in the field to give response against the query. The responders may rephrase the question if it is not covered completely
Biotechnology
Cell biology
Diabetes
Dose-response modeling
Drug delivery
Naresh Sachdeva
Both aspects, i.e., independent research and collaborative research are important these days for the survival of a researcher. However, when it comes to judging the ability or rating, I believe it is the independent research which establishes the credibility of a researcher
Vijay Kothari
While both are important, I attach more importance to proving one's capacity as an independent researher. One example: These days in biology, anybody having a sequencing machine can collaborate with people from differnt fields (about which he/she does not know anything substantial) just by offering the access to sequencer, where you put in the nucleic acid and some output is guranteed. Such type of reseach in not 'collaborative' in true sense. Hence I beleive to stand footed as an independent researcher is more important, while being open to collaborations where your intellectual contribution is involved.
E. Remboutsika
Both are necessary because they show different skills necessary to formulate an academic research or private sector career.
Bhoj R Singh
A novel type of research (as first author or coauthor in a team of 2-5) is enough to prove the metal of the scientist instead of having hundreds of publications as co-authors.
Okotto-Okotto Joseph