Let us assume person X and person Y. Both entered grad school in the same year, X as a PhD student (without a prior masters degree) and Y as a masters student in the same field. Towards, the end of second year, X realized that a PhD was too much for him and decided to quit but was eligible for a masters degree ( he had enough credits to do so). Both X and Y graduate with a masters degree with good grades. Let's assume both of them were nearly equally matched in their profile ( w.r.t. projects, internships e.t.c). Who would a recruiter prefer for a technical position at their company : X or Y ?
For recruiter it is better that candidate would not have any scientific relation at all. Reason for this is that "working for salary" differs greatly from "work for passion". You can possibly become passionate in the future and leave your workplace company, which is considered a risk. Risks reduce your value for recruiter. It is in your best interests to hide out unless specifically asked any freelance/science/grants and other sources of money you have. Same is about your stake in companies and other similar things.
PS. You may possibly mention your scientific papers during interview with your real future boss to boost your value, but only if you generally know that the company is innovative or technology oriented. Sadly there is zero use for your scientific experience otherwise. Boss-type people do not understand science and never will. Expect nothing, generally this considered a very risky move during your interview. Not because people may become interested and ask you about your work, but because generally company people hate smarties. Remember it.