I just received reviews of my manuscript, and one of the reviewers wanted all of the "was" regarding individual observations derived from computational runs to be changed to "is." From my perspective, results from experimentation (computation) were observed in the past, and describing what was observed in the past should use "was". For example: "Method A was better than method B for distinguishing. " If this statement was changed to: "Method A is better than method B for distinguishing. " it guarantees that Method A will be better than method B in the future, but as a scientist (physicist) you can only make statements about what was observed during the experiment, and not make statements about how something will work in the future. I think I want to respond by saying the particular reviewer is wrong concerning statements about observations made during a past experiment (computational run). Do you think this is a generational thing?
asked Jun 20 at 0:14 111 1 1 bronze badge Commented Jun 21 at 13:17In your example, comparing Method A to Method B, the use of was is observational. Changing was to is makes it a statement. Method A is better than Method B at sorting jelly beans. The word 'is' makes this it an assertion that can be then defended by your supporting data. As you said 'is' applies to the future, other jelly bean sorting researchers should use Method A instead of B.
Physics is filled with 'is' statements. Force is the product of mass and acceleration. Changing that to a 'was' would sound odd because the passiveness of 'was' weakens the declarative value of the work. Was is like we thought A worked better than B, but your mileage may vary because 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
In the end, it depends on your confidence in the data. Is the experiment noisy and hard to replicate. Then maybe 'was' is pragmatic. 'Was' leaves wiggle room that 'is' closes off entirely.