In a current project of mine, I analyze a certain probability distribution to model a biological process. This probability distribution is not "mainstream", but it is relevant enough to have its own name (general projected normal), and it is acknowledged to be a very complicated distribution.
In this project, I had to derive analytic expressions for approximating the moments of this distribution (actually, of a slightly more general version of the distribution). I also spent some time converting the messy resulting expressions into nice matrix formulas that can be computed efficiently, and implementing them in code.
My question is that I am not sure whether the work I put into the statistical model should be buried in the supplementary of my computational biology paper, or whether I should try to publish it separately.
The biology paper will be focused on explaining how these formulas relate to the process in question, and relating their behavior. The formulas would be highlighted in the paper, but, for example, the name of the distribution (projected normal) would not make the title, and maybe not even the abstract. The derivations would be in the supplementary. Thus, I'm worried that if these results are a useful contribution to the statistics literature, they would be difficult to find.
On the other hand, although my derivations were very involved for me as a non-statistician, I'm not sure what is general interest for these formulas, and I am not sure whether the "difficulty" of these derivations would merit an independent statistics publication.
How can I tell whether publishing this analysis in two papers, one for the statistics derivations, one for the biology applications makes sense? Or whether I should publish everything in one paper, and risk having a useful statistics contribution go unnoticed.