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
-
-
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 -
Replying to @cian_neuro @markdhumphries and
In more positive experiences, my elife paper has no data. Just modelling.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21397 …0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Probably to my detriment, but I've never really collected data from meatspace. 
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.