In a multi-study paper, if one of the studies is a reanalysis of an already published study for a novel purpose (done by one of the co-authors), would you describe the method in full, as you would for new exps', or just briefly summarize with reference to the published article?
-
-
I agree with your sentiment. That said, we submitted a paper analysing existing data with a shortened method section, but received feedback from reviewers that they needed more (practically full) details to understand metods and how those affected interpretation of results.
-
My concern exactly. As a reader I don't like when I see that, because often I just take the article with me to read somewhere where i might not have access to the other one. But it seems most people voted for summaries
-
I dunno. I'm conflicted. But yes as a general rule I completely agree that more info is better esp since people can skip.
-
The editor recommended that since there is no word limit for method section, we should redescribe the method in full, regardless of the fact that the experiment has been previously published
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I agree with this--a sort of intermediate between the presented poll options. Not too succinct, provide a reasonable overview but still credit/refer readers to the original work for the full details.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.