I think that currently we are witnessing a period where the "analytic methods" have exceeded in importance the problems they were trying to solve: always more papers show new and innovative statistical methods in order to analyze the same old data. This has a positive side, in Ecology, we can confirm the fact that the world is a very complex system. And for this reason, are welcome new and improved methods to understand the real complexity of reality. But the need to publish, and the ever increasing demand of "innovation" by the Journals, could constitute a trap: a paradox which forces the authors to find more "new methods for analisys" rather "new data" or "best responses to our old questions."

From the ecological point of view, often is best reliability that precision. The question is: We are more near to the true when improve our statistical methods or when we are focused in our interpretation of the data /results?

Is wrong if is more novelty in the methods of data analysis, that in the data itself? Or is maybe only an impression?