PNAS has a series of brief comments on the role that equations–and more broadly, math-heavy papers–play in the citation frequency of biology articles (see here, here, here, here and here). It appears to be the case that in at least some journals, some articles get under-cited, possibly because of a general lack of mathematical literacy. The back and forth highlight several critiques of the approach of the original paper, but also bring up questions about how and when math is useful as a communicative form. In particular, math is wonderfully efficient when an idea can be formalized, but unnecessary or misleading for ideas that need not, or cannot, take on a formal structure. The conversation, which is quite short, is somewhat interesting.
I like math. I have always liked math. I get a lot of enjoyment helping my 5th grade step-daughter on her math homework, in part, because it gives me a self-reflexive window into my own learning experiences and basic thought processes regarding math. Nevertheless, within a paleoanthropological framework, the utility of mathematical operations is often curtailed by the kind of (and quantity and quality of) data available, data that is often limited, descriptive and comparative in nature. Even when the data are lacking however, math can be extremely useful in putting together a formal hypothesis-testing framework based on evolutionary derived theoretical expectations. As a medium for rendering theoretical ideas in formal terms, even if those formal terms cannot be matched by the available data, math is invaluable.
All of which is to say I will try to share a little more math in the future.
(Source: Sinauer press, Principles of Animal Communication)
I never liked it when editors/reviewers suggest that the math go into an appendix at the end of the paper (as happened to me recently). It seems that the equations are part of the methods and should be treated as such.