Hypothetically, which of these authorship scenarios would look better to the eyes of a potential employer in the academic world of biology/bioengineering from the perspective of author A:
Work 1: author B*, author A*, author C - moderate potential for impact
Work 2: author A*, author B*, author C - moderate to high potential for impact
*these authors contributed equally
Work 1: author B, author A, author C - moderate potential for impact
Work 2: author A, author B, author C - moderate to high potential for impact
My colleague and I have a theorist/experimentalist relationship with a work that has since fractured into two separate works. The second work is more theory focused while the first is more experiment focused. We believe the second work has a more broad ranged application and has potential to be heavily cited.
Pragmatically, author A is close to finishing his PhD and, besides these two works, he has one first author paper.