Of course, scientists do not operate in isolation. One strategy is simply to propose bold hypotheses for which one has amassed some confirmatory evidence, and let others attempt to falsify it. Prominent discoverers in psychology like Freud, Skinner and Simon embarked on extensive research programs, took at least some results critical of their perspectives into account, but never abandoned their 'hard core' ideas. It would be interesting to see whether such a cognitive style is equally effective in other sciences. The act of writing is part of the discovery process.
Similar protocols ought to be done on scientists as they write.
These works provide a valuable catalogue of the rhetorical moves and revision strategies followed by the biologists, but do not include the kind of fine-grained analysis represented by a protocol. In her own words, the biologist had to learn to tell a 'phony story' about how her research was conducted. In her early drafts, she constructed a narrative based on the internal logic of her own research program. In later drafts, she made it sound like her own research had emerged from issues in the scientific literature in her area. These accounts of scientists learning the conventions of their genre are very valuable, because, as Holmes documented, discoveries can emerge when a scientist transforms her research results for publication.