Within computational neuroscience, informal interactions with modelers often reveal wildly divergent goals. In this opinion piece, we explicitly address the diversity of goals that motivate and ultimately influence modeling efforts. We argue that a wide range of goals can be meaningfully taken to be of highest importance. A simple informal survey conducted on the Internet confirmed the diversity of goals in the community. However, different priorities or preferences of individual researchers can lead to divergent model evaluation criteria. We propose that many disagreements in evaluating the merit of computational research stem from differences in goals and not from the mechanics of constructing, describing, and validating models. We suggest that authors state explicitly their goals when proposing models so that others can judge the quality of the research with respect to its stated goals.
Download