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.
You didn't yourself, no. I thought this thread is about the group-level dynamics and you wanted to chat to me about them since I and the OP asked?
-
-
Ok, so then....My point is these risks make experimentalists territorial. Offering to collaborate, even when not ‘legally’ necessary, defuses that feeling and, more importantly, often yields a better paper (or at least prevents people from chasing artifacts).
-
I always think the kind thing to do is to ask the originator if they would like to collaborate. Like if I give my neighbor apricots from my tree, they're free to make and eat an apricot torte, but it's always nice if they share a slice with me.
-
Someone pointed out on this thread that what that collaboration would do is destroy the independence of the researcher who may be demonstrating problems in the original claims. That is a killer argument against having the orig. author as collaborator.
-
I guess it depends on your view of science, and of human nature.
End of conversation
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.