tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4456348657596914237.post3866720949998924415..comments2024-03-28T03:23:34.100-04:00Comments on Eco-Evo Evo-Eco: In praise of double-dipping from data.Ben Hallerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17875404974157070805noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4456348657596914237.post-3021040634575612452021-02-16T03:25:11.369-05:002021-02-16T03:25:11.369-05:00It's an interesting dilemma. Someone who is i...It's an interesting dilemma. Someone who is interested in the work from your lab will ultimately have to read all of these papers anyway, so is it really so different from writing that 150-page behemoth? Maybe it is; maybe there are advantages to presenting multiple distinct "stories" versus a single manuscript. (Although I can see advantages to presenting it in a single coherent manuscript, too; certainly a lot less redundancy for the description of methods, right?) For my PhD I had a model that led to a whole bunch of interesting results, many of which ended up getting shunted into a 38-page supplemental that probably very few people read. Maybe I should have published some of that as one, or maybe more, additional papers; I think there was some pretty interesting stuff in it that deserved more airtime than it got. But that's even more frowned upon for models; one model, one paper. And yet one model can generate as much data as decades of observation of an empirical system would generate; is it really fair to expect that to always fit into one paper? We would never expect decades of observation of an empirical system to lead to just a single paper. But then empirical systems are reality, and models are just shadows on the cave wall, so perhaps it's justified to some extent. I don't know, just musing out loud.Ben Hallerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17875404974157070805noreply@blogger.com