As a researcher with about 15 years of experience I learned from my submissions of articles to various national and international journals that Macro level studies are given preference over the Micro level studies especially in international journals with high impact factors. To my beliefs Micro level studies with proper field surveys yield better empirical data and realistic information. Most of the Macro level studies are based on deductive approach that is without field visits. Researchers who are carrying out such studies at country and global level are based on the available data and literature reviews. More specifically, when we talk about the species distribution modelling using MaxEnt Macro level studies are based on the occurrence data either GBIF or other databases collected in different time periods. Here, it is pertinent to mention that such data are old data and who knows at the time of modelling the species might have extinct from the locality. On contrary to that, in a Micro level study, the possibilities of visiting fields and collection of real occurrence points are possible and by using such points the authenticity of the findings are more valid. I am a field worker and believe in direct visual appreciation of the species in the field and based on that the modelling are being carried out. During the past my articles got rejected from many reputed international journals on the ground that the study has been conducted at smaller areas. But, I am not discouraged and continuing my efforts and working with the same momentum. By expressing all these comments I am not trying to prove that Macro level deductive studies are not significant. In fact, such studies have very high impact and good findings too. However, Micro level inductive studies should be also given priority in terms of publication in good journals. After all, both approaches are useful in research.

I invite the valuable opinions of researchers on this pertinent discussion.