In experimental sciences, studies are only as good as the validity of the methods and materials used to perform their research. You ask a question, design a method, precisely document the results, and draw conclusions that can withstand scrutiny. Scientists who write papers describing their experiments want to publish their papers in scientific journals for the purpose of informing their peers of their findings. These other scientists want to know HOW the study was performed and what techniques were employed to ensure that the reported results are not only valid but also trustworthy. Arguably, this is the most crucial section for critical appraisal of an experimental research paper.
Word of the Wise: The Fundamental Principle of Scientific Progress
Reflecting on my early days in the laboratory as a graduate student at Cornell University, I remember the guiding principle of my advisor, Donald Reis. He stressed that what sets experimental scientists apart from other scientific disciplines is knowing how to methodically design well-controlled experiments to test our hypotheses. I still recall his words, “You must be absolutely sure that the methods you are using are reliable and reproducible, so that any changes you find occur only as a result of the experimental treatment you are studying and not because of inconsistencies in your methods.”
In other words, in controlled experiments, changes in the outcome measurements, dependent variables (e.g., blood pressure, enzyme activity, etc.), occur strictly because of the experimental treatment under study, or independent variables, (e.g., manipulation of a specific dietary ingredient, drug, physical condition, etc.).
A fundamental principle of scientific progress is that published experimental studies should provide sufficient details so that reported results can be independently replicated by scientists in other laboratories. This is the reason why, in traditional scientific publications, the Methods section was placed after the Introduction section but before the Results and Discussion sections. This section order in scientific publications is referred to as IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion).
The Case Against Relegating the Methods Section to the End of Scientific Papers
Sometime at the end of the 1990s, several journal publishers, including Cell Press, Nature portfolio, Science titles, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, rearranged the section order to relegate the Methods section to the end of the paper. I find that keeping the Methods section at the end is inconvenient and counterproductive, as it forces critical readers and reviewers to wander to the end of such publications to make sure the reported results are reliable.
Publishers reason that this section rearrangement—which is now pervasive among scientific journals—makes the papers they publish more engaging and accessible to a diverse readership who might skip the “tedious” Methods section. But most of these journals are discipline-specific. The target readership of experimental scientific papers is not a wider audience without specialized knowledge; rather, it is narrow and should remain focused on expert scientists within specified research fields.
The Abstract at the beginning of scientific papers serves the purpose of describing the background, methods, results and conclusions in a concise few-sentence outline. More recently, some journals also require an upfront “Highlights” paragraph that includes a limited number of bullet points of a few words each, summarizing the main findings and significance of the paper. These should be sufficient for allowing readers with scientific background to quickly grasp the essence of the paper. To reiterate, scientific papers should not be written for diverse readership or “broader” audiences. Enough avenues, including press releases, popular magazines, social media, and podcasts, are readily available today for publicizing scientific research in plain language, after scientific papers are properly written, reviewed, and published in science journals.
Many scientists regard moving the Methods section to the end of scientific papers as a glaring mistake. It is time for all science journals to revert to the traditional IMRaD section format in the publication of experimental studies. That some online journal publishers (such as PLOS or Frontiers) default to the traditional IMRaD format supports this concept. I think that universal reinstatement of the traditional format for original research articles would also have a favorable effect on the public image of all stakeholders involved in the scientific publication endeavor.
