ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2024
Six personas to adopt when framing theoretical research questions in biology.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Theory in Biology: How You Can Be, and Likely Already Are, a Theoretician.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Predictions From Evolutionary Theory for Urban Environments.Evolutionary applications · 2026Article
- Effect of resistant compartment on pathogen strategy in partially migratory populations.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Theory is a critical component of the biological research process, and complements observational and experimental approaches. However, most biologists receive little training on how to frame a theoretical question and, thus, how to evaluate when theory has successfully answered the research question. Here, we develop a guide with six verbal framings for theoretical models in biology. These correspond to different personas one might adopt as a theorist: 'Advocate', 'Explainer', 'Instigator', 'Mediator', 'Semantician' and 'Tinkerer'. These personas are drawn from combinations of two starting points (pattern or mechanism) and three foci (novelty, robustness or conflict). We illustrate each of these framings with examples of specific theoretical questions, by drawing on recent theoretical papers in the fields of ecology and evolutionary biology. We show how the same research topic can be approached from slightly different perspectives, using different framings. We show how clarifying a model's framing can debunk common misconceptions of theory: that simplifying assumptions are bad, more detail is always better, models show anything you want and modelling requires substantial maths knowledge. Finally, we provide a roadmap that researchers new to theoretical research can use to identify a framing to serve as a blueprint for their own theoretical research projects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.