I've spent a large part of my day writing a manuscript from using data obtained from graduate school and I'm ready to explode. I blame this on two things: (1) Half of this paper is negative data and (2) The data is what I consider "left-overs."
Writing a paper half-full of negative data sucks ass for the obvious reasons. It is generally not as interesting as a paper based on positive data and, unfortunately, it takes a lot more effort to write. Plus, it seems like you are constantly justifying why the data is important which makes me feel a little more like a used car sales person than a scientist.
What's worse than writing about negative data is the fact that this paper seems to consist entirely of left over data. I previously hijacked a portion of the results and placed them into a paper that was recently accepted. Obviously this was a good idea, but now I am left with a hodge-podge of data that is related, but difficult to make into a cohesive story. The results outline I put together with my grad advisor regarding this paper seemed like a good idea at the time, but translating that discussion into a paper is not going so well.
I am so freaking irritated. I keep reminding myself that writing is a frustrating process, but I still want to smash my laptop.