Every search, and every search committee is different (e.g., even in back-to-back years of searching in the same area in the same program and university, there is variability), so it is hard to articulate "one size fits all" types of items that will be nearly universal. Some of the "variance" has to do with the applicant pool. I've been on committees where it was difficult to identify the top 3-5 candidates because there were 10-15 great choices, followed by another 10 applicants that were good. That said, for the committees on which I've served, we have often considered some of or all of the following (in rough order of importance):
1) fit for position based on areas of research reflected in their existing publications, and articulated in their research statements
a. Good to see at least 6-8 total, but with an eye towards a combination of quality and quantity (e.g., of the 6-8, we like to see at least 1 or 2 [min.] papers as lead author in a top tiered journal)
b. We realize that more is not necessarily better, and adjust expectations for those that have had post-docs vs. those applying straight out of grad. school
c. The committees on which I've served also consider content area (e.g., we know that applicants for clinical positions have had obligatory clinical training requirements that takes away time for research; that it
takes longer for those doing developmental research to generate publishable findings, etc.)
d. A large number of papers wherein there are few first author papers would be seen as lopsided, and not very desirable (i.e., at least 1/3 of papers should ideally be first authored papers)
e. There has been some sensitivity to indicators of quality that are independent of the very crude journal IF (e.g., citations)
f. Methodological and statistical acumen, as evident by published work, and in the research statement and Vitae
3) Game Plan - applications wherein the applicant does not articulate a thoughtful game plan for research for the next 3-5 years (at least) might make the first cut (depending on above factors), but are ultimately
not likely to receive an interview (and, we spend a lot of time on this topic during the interview phase as well).
4) It is nice to see that an applicant is not a "one trick pony". That is, applicants that have two relatively separate, but inter-related areas of research can be seen as stronger than those that only have one because
we know that if things are taking longer with one, or not materializing at all in one area, they have another area that could be fruitful (it is painful to watch bright/hard working people flounder for a while when
their only area of work is taking a lot of time to generate findings or is clearly not working out)
5) For clinical searches, there may be consideration of clinical specialty/skills, and license eligibility if there are supervision expectations
6) Teaching - but, this is way down on the list because it is assumed that, given enough time, most people can teach many (though, certainly not all, or even most) courses in the curriculum, but with the
understanding that the further from the area of expertise, the longer it would take to prepare the course the first time.
As a related aside - I've seen a lot of people get caught up in the idea that an R1 is the ONLY place one could/should be. For some, this may be, in fact, true. But for many, the key question should be, "can I do the work I want to do at [insert institution/department here]?". There are quite a few R2 doctoral granting departments out there that have a 2-2 or fewer teaching load, good facilities, and support research quite well. Colleagues in R2s that are in departments that are in the top 3-5 in their institutions in terms of bringing in external grants have it just as well or better than some in R1 institutions.
But, as others have said, it really is that competitive, and it is best to prepare for a multi-year process (though, many do succeed their first time out).
Good luck - hope this information is helpful!