Out of those 4 papers in his postdoc lab, two are reviews[0,1] and one is a peer commentary[2], so only the second-author paper I linked before counts as original research.
Similarly, one of his (three) first-author publications from his PhD lab is also a review[3]. He does have two first-author publications from that lab, including one in PNAS[4], but neither of them seem to have been cited that much. In any case, you can't coast on your PhD publication record once you've been a postdoc for several years.
There are only 3 authors on the Nat. Neurosci. paper, so he likely spent a large amount of his time working on this project. So it would be a bit unfair to compare his output in that lab to that of the first author of the same paper.
Metrics are fine and all, but rarely tell the full picture. Not that I know what the full picture really looks like in this case...
Quite. He performed the research, but it doesn't indicate whether he spent 2 years doing mostly this, or did just one of the experiments over a few weeks... Similarly for the first author.
Out of those 4 papers in his postdoc lab, two are reviews[0,1] and one is a peer commentary[2], so only the second-author paper I linked before counts as original research.
Similarly, one of his (three) first-author publications from his PhD lab is also a review[3]. He does have two first-author publications from that lab, including one in PNAS[4], but neither of them seem to have been cited that much. In any case, you can't coast on your PhD publication record once you've been a postdoc for several years.
0: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.12315/abstra...
1: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnins.2014.00...
2: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...
3: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21111208
4: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/2/E84.long