Both are hard, but experiments are riskier: you can spend years breeding and training animals and end up with nothing at all, not even an uninteresting or null result. It would take spectacularly bad planning for that to happen while modeling.
-
-
We are talking about *authorship*, it should be obvious that whoever builds a model authors it, that authorship does not rely on the difficulty or riks entailed in a task. However, and talking as both empirical (animal) scientist and modeller, I don't think that
-
using others' models, data or methods directly qualifies someone as co-author. IMO, it would depend on their implication on that specific study. Your research is not an investment in others'
-
Yeah, totally agreed. I do think
@shravanvasishth is picking up a on real thing though were data collectors are more protective than modellers. And modellers do get very little recognition in general. Many relegated to middle author almost always. -
This is why I do very little when I am asked to model something for people now, because I know I will be middle author even if I do a tonne of modelling.
-
The only way as a modeller I can be first author is if I don't allow any data-collectors to be involved.

-
So just being 100% a data parasite and/or collecting the data myself.
-
Which is sad because this means less collaboration in the "pure" sense.
-
At the end of the day none of this would matter, except of course as a modeller if you always are middle author you can't get a job as easily since they need first author pubs to hire you... So yeah, it's very unfair.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.