Follow
"Scientists learn to be authors by reading what has gone before and acquainting themselves with the literature. It’s clear then, that researchers pick up the unspoken message that method sections should be short, and minimal on detail."
https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2022/12/07/research-with-integrity-the-madness-of-short-methods/
@kristinmbranson My favorite subgenre are the M&Ms that cite a paper in the "as previously described in ref X" and then when you check, X is a review article.
@cyrilpedia
'Methods' should contain enough information to allow anyone with the equipment and materials to reproduce the findings. Not more, not less.
Just look at what happened here when influential findings weren't verified...
@cyrilpedia When I first started working in biology, I thought it was crazy that the methods in a journal called Nature Methods were not in the main text! You have to read the paper, then the methods, then the supplement to understand what people actually did! CV/ML papers, in contrast, are mostly methods, and IMO not enough attention is paid to the results, which is maybe not better...