Exploratory study

[finkelbert]

Timo commented on "4.4.3 Discussion." (p. 36):

okay, so for the reader none of this matters, but it might be confusing, I suggest outsourcing the entire description of the exploratory study into the appendix. The estimates are useless and there is nothing to gain for the reader. For you it made sense, and it is important to not put these things into the file drawer but for a reader this is inessential.

[bnicenboim]

I beg to differ. I think you should def keep the pilot.
But you should start the discussion saying that the results showed that the experiment worked as expected. It's reassuring to see that all the theories can account for the data to some extent, with longer RTs for either categories that are considered less well-formed or for the less well formed scores in the continous NAP.. Something like this. Just make clear emphasis in what we learned, and then the limitations.
But I think it's good to show that we have two versions of the experiment. It would matter to me as a reader, that the models were developed with data, and then were tested again with a larger dataset, it will give me confidence on the author's work.
(If the reviewers agree with Timo, we can move it to an appendix, but it won't be a reason for rejection, the opposite might be true, having only one experiment might be a reason for some reviewers).

[finkelbert]

I agree with you eventually, but I will try to rephrase and rearrange things a bit given Timo's view (I think the reader would be less disappointed if we flag the anti-climactic nature of the exploratory study earliy on). Anyway, I'm keeping this issue open till I touch the text...