I am an analyst on a paper and, in writing up methods and results, noted that one of the proposed (logistic regression) models did not converge due to separation. I noted this in the results section of the paper, but the authors have asked that this be moved to the methods section.
It doesn't seem right to me, as their only justification for doing so is that it is a somewhat technical concept. But it turns out that several of the proposed regression variables were highly correlated. We wouldn't have known that before looking at the data. By that reasoning, it seems intuitive to report this in the results. But I think their issue is that even making mention of the technical aspects detracts from the results (to me, it enhances them).
Is there a resource to which I can defer that would argue in favor of presenting this evidence one way versus another? Either a methods type article or even an applied article where the authors did an exceptionally good job at describing a proposed analysis that failed to converge?