At DrugMonkey, PhysioProf says "co-first authorship is a sham, and only serves as a political compromise to placate non-first authors" and that peer reviewers and academic committees "give little additional weight to the designation.” In the comments, TreeFish says, "The study section members who infer meaning from that are either (1) ignorant of the significance and approach of the paper; (2) petty; or (3) both." What do you say?