Re: [Swarm-Modelling] ABM in Nature

[Alex Lancaster]

>>>>> "SR" == Steve Railsback  writes:

[...]

>> That's bad enough it in itself, you shouldn't have to *infer* the
>> model being used, it should be explicit in the paper.  Somebody
>> should write a letter to Nature requesting a more detailed
>> explanation of the model, if it's not published in *full detail*,
>> how can it be reproduced? ;-) A.

SR> Ah, as I explained to Gary off-list, one of the benefits of
SR> publishing in Nature (or Science) is that they have extremely
SR> limited space, so it is impossible to describe your work in full
SR> detail.

SR> (However, they do allow extra material to be posted at their web
SR> site, which in this case also did not include a description of the
SR> model.)

Sure I should have been more specific, I meant that it should be
explained in full detail at some publically-available place, either in
the paper or in the supplementary material (which should be part of
the peer review process as well).  At the very least the type of model
should have been mentioned in the paper itself (that wouldn't have
taken too much space).

A.