Choosing the best tool or method for a particular experiment can be a daunting task. Finding the right choice can mean much time and many resources and an improper one can lead to poor or inaccurate results.<\/p>\n
Direct head-to-head comparisons of methods or tools under standardized experimental conditions can yield extremely valuable information for method users and also for tool developers. To ensure publication of these types of papers, Nature Methods provides the \u2018Analysis\u2019 <\/a>format.<\/p>\n In our February<\/a> issue Editorial<\/a> we discuss the value of these types of publications and we highlight two recent examples of Analysis papers that we hope will become well-thumbed copies in many desks throughout the world.<\/p>\n Zhuang<\/a> and colleagues performed a systematic empirical comparison of different fluorescent dyes used for super-resolution imaging and Deisseroth<\/a> and colleagues compare a wealth of optogenetic tools for the modulation of neuronal activity.<\/p>\n Nature Methods will\u00a0continue to look for these\u00a0kinds of\u00a0comparative projects and\u00a0we\u00a0are eager to hear\u00a0your thoughts about\u00a0 particular areas that\u00a0might benefit from this type of work and to receive proposals and submissions of this kind.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Choosing the best tool or method for a particular experiment can be a daunting task. Finding the right choice can mean much time and many resources and an improper one can lead to poor or inaccurate results. Read more<\/a> Continue reading