next »

[mozman]

We've been preparing to submit a major paper for a couple of weeks. There is one experiment that had very cool results. It was a major experiment that took a long time and a lot of effort. But we've been struggling about how to properly incorporate it.  

After about 5 re-writes I had an epiphany late last night. A little voice came to me and sang:

"Take the data OUT".

I thought about this.  What was I REALLY trying to say?  How does this experiment add to that message?  And I realized, it didn't add to the message - it murked it up, and invited additional questions that were unrelated to the main story.  But we spent so much time on it, I didn't want to see that.

So with a heavy heart, I slashed that experiment and all discussion of it out of the paper. It is now streamlined, tight, and focused.

I feel like I just cut the foot off a patient to save their life.

[larryc]

Could you grow the foot into another patient? I mean, you are a scientist.

[mozman]

Could you grow the foot into another patient? I mean, you are a scientist.

Heh, yes. We need to perform a couple experiments to address those additional questions and we have a new paper.

[fayefaye]

It can be tough to take out something substantial that you're previously thought necessary to the paper. I've had those kind of epiphanies about entire sections of papers. As they say, sometimes less is more.

[lukeurig]

It can be tough to take out something substantial that you're previously thought necessary to the paper. I've had those kind of epiphanies about entire sections of papers. As they say, sometimes less is more.

Best dissertation advice I've received from my adviser: "Dare to be finite."  It is now paying off -- the slim dissertation has made the process of publishing to be much easier.  Only minor revisions needed and indexing is not as much of a royal pain.  But the advice was painful to hear at first.

[pathogen]

I tell my students that you will do much more work than will go into that manuscript (you don't realize how much til the end), and that you must let go emotionally of your own work. If it makes another short paper, so much the better. I'm a big fan of the short paper format.

[bevo98]

This is not uncommon. I actually just cut part of an article out that took me two days to research and construct.  I remember once someone saying (could I be anymore vague?) that you should eliminate the sentences you move love in writing.  I don't think it needs to be that dramatic but, good for you, you will probably get to use it again and, if not, you are a better scholar for having done the experiment and realizing it just didn't fit.

[southerntransplant]

I do this all the time. I put a cool result from a tangentially-related model in with a paper I'm writing because at the time I don't think I can grow the result into another paper (and because it's so damn cool). Then the paper reads like one of those beautifully tight novels that has one unfortunate chapter about Druids. So, then, reluctantly, I throw it out. In repentance for this Druid-ectomy, I write another paper on Druids.

It's like loaves and fishes, except with papers.

[msparticularity]

My empirical studies have all turned out this way: they've birthed a more empirical paper, along with one to really examine the philosophical and/or methodological implications of the issue.

At the moment, I'm struggling with a slightly different version of this problem; I have a theoretical framework that is so sprawling and cross-disciplinary that I can't figure out how on earth to reduce it to anything that will be unified enough to really make sense to someone else. In part, my argument relies upon discussing a couple of meta-analyses of the accumulated empirical data from one field--and it seems kind of appealing to cut that out since it requires a fair amount discussion and explanation, and is the least clearly-related to the rest. At the same time, it's really not possible to get to the conclusion without incorporating that data, since it accomplishes the synthesis of the strand that intersects the various areas: it's what provides the "aha" moment.

I've gotten back an R&R on the current version from the top journal in my subfield, and the reviewer comments actually validate the problem: it's both intriguing and hideously sprawling. No one can suggest an area that I ought to cut, but they all agree I need to do something about the scope, or the organization, or something. Urgh.

[monsterx]

My empirical studies have all turned out this way: they've birthed a more empirical paper, along with one to really examine the philosophical and/or methodological implications of the issue.

At the moment, I'm struggling with a slightly different version of this problem; I have a theoretical framework that is so sprawling and cross-disciplinary that I can't figure out how on earth to reduce it to anything that will be unified enough to really make sense to someone else. In part, my argument relies upon discussing a couple of meta-analyses of the accumulated empirical data from one field--and it seems kind of appealing to cut that out since it requires a fair amount discussion and explanation, and is the least clearly-related to the rest. At the same time, it's really not possible to get to the conclusion without incorporating that data, since it accomplishes the synthesis of the strand that intersects the various areas: it's what provides the "aha" moment.

I've gotten back an R&R on the current version from the top journal in my subfield, and the reviewer comments actually validate the problem: it's both intriguing and hideously sprawling. No one can suggest an area that I ought to cut, but they all agree I need to do something about the scope, or the organization, or something. Urgh.

Maybe what you really have is a book and not a paper.

[msparticularity]

My empirical studies have all turned out this way: they've birthed a more empirical paper, along with one to really examine the philosophical and/or methodological implications of the issue.

At the moment, I'm struggling with a slightly different version of this problem; I have a theoretical framework that is so sprawling and cross-disciplinary that I can't figure out how on earth to reduce it to anything that will be unified enough to really make sense to someone else. In part, my argument relies upon discussing a couple of meta-analyses of the accumulated empirical data from one field--and it seems kind of appealing to cut that out since it requires a fair amount discussion and explanation, and is the least clearly-related to the rest. At the same time, it's really not possible to get to the conclusion without incorporating that data, since it accomplishes the synthesis of the strand that intersects the various areas: it's what provides the "aha" moment.

I've gotten back an R&R on the current version from the top journal in my subfield, and the reviewer comments actually validate the problem: it's both intriguing and hideously sprawling. No one can suggest an area that I ought to cut, but they all agree I need to do something about the scope, or the organization, or something. Urgh.

Maybe what you really have is a book and not a paper.

I've thought about that, and do actually have notes for a larger book. Still, this particular piece of analysis just doesn't seem to me to warrant a whole book of its own--at least yet. Interestingly, too, neither the editor nor the reviewers has suggested that, and this is a crowd that definitely would have noticed if my scope were unreasonable. The really encouraging thing in case it does turn out to be a longer work is that I'm moving to a new position at a SLAC next year. Although education is generally a journal field and my current institution will only accept journal articles for tenure and promotion, the SLAC understands that much of my work is historical and philosophical, and is delighted for me to write books as well.

[polly_mer]

I do this all the time. I put a cool result from a tangentially-related model in with a paper I'm writing because at the time I don't think I can grow the result into another paper (and because it's so damn cool). Then the paper reads like one of those beautifully tight novels that has one unfortunate chapter about Druids. So, then, reluctantly, I throw it out. In repentance for this Druid-ectomy, I write another paper on Druids.

It's like loaves and fishes, except with papers.

I do this, too.  I can't remember the last time that the submitted paper looked anything like the outline three months earlier when I was going to put X, Y, and Z data in it.

OK, that's not entirely true.  The paper that started out as the comparison of four analysis techniques ended up with three analysis techniques, none of which had anything to do with each other other than being a "hey, look!  We don't have to fight since all three techniques work equally well on this kind of data".