For one paper we are working on I did the modelling first, suggested a bunch of experiments and predicted their results. We did the experiments and it all worked! Some colleagues suggested that we should write the story with experiments first and the model at the end 
-
-
Replying to @Adrian_Jacobo @waterlego and
Journal peer reviewers demanded that we reconfigure one of our papers exactly like that.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cian_neuro @mnitabach and
No consensus among the 4 reviewers on this. Hence: "Some reviewers thought it would be better to present the experiment first" I did not like it; but understood the suggestion came from a desire to ensure the paper was read by experimentalists, not to downgrade the modelling
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @markdhumphries @cian_neuro and
But that again plays into the idea of experiments being "more interesting" for experimentalists, and the model just being an add on.
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @cian_neuro @Adrian_Jacobo and
All true. And I did complain, hence the decision letter did not order the model to the back... I still feel your paper is much closer to that bright, theory-driven future than is typical! After all the model is Figure 2 - and it is critical to all that follows...
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cian_neuro @Adrian_Jacobo and
Don't worry, didn't infer blame! And I think
@eLife might turn out to be the highest profile arena where this battle (Fig 1 vs Fig 7 model/theory) will be fought, because its reviewing process allows reviewers to constructively argue with the editors directly.0 replies 0 retweets 7 likes
In more positive experiences, my elife paper has no data. Just modelling.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21397 …
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.