The methods section has one job. It must let another researcher repeat your study and get comparable results. That single test, reproducibility, decides whether your methods pass or fail.
Many authors treat this section as a dull formality. However, reviewers read it first and hardest. In fact, an unclear methods section is one of the most common reasons papers are desk-rejected. So this guide shows you how to write one that survives that scrutiny.
The one test that matters
Before you write a word, hold this question in your mind. Could a competent researcher in your field repeat this study from my description alone?
If the answer is yes, your methods section works. If the answer is no, you have more detail to add.
This is not a vague ideal. It is the exact standard reviewers apply. So every choice below serves that single test.
What the methods section must contain
A strong methods section answers five questions in order. Each one builds on the last.
- Study design — what kind of study did you run?
- Participants or materials — who or what did you study, and how did you select them?
- Procedure — what exactly did you do, step by step?
- Analysis — how did you analyse the data?
- Ethics — who approved the study?
Cover these five, in this order, and you give reviewers a clear path through your work. Now let us look at each one.
Describe your study design
State your design first, because it frames everything else. A reviewer needs to know whether to judge your work by experimental, observational, or qualitative standards.
Name the design plainly. For example: a randomised controlled trial, a prospective cohort study, a cross-sectional survey, or a qualitative interview study.
Then justify it briefly. One sentence on why this design suited your research question is often enough.
Detail your participants or materials
This is where vague writing does the most damage. "Participants were selected" tells a reviewer nothing useful.
Instead, report the specifics. For human studies, include:
- The total number of participants.
- How you determined the sample size, such as a power calculation.
- Your inclusion and exclusion criteria.
- How you recruited people, for example random, convenience, or purposive sampling.
- Relevant demographic details.
For laboratory work, list your materials, reagents, and equipment precisely. Also give model numbers, suppliers, and software versions, since reproducibility depends on those details.
Explain your procedure
Now describe what you actually did, in the order you did it. Think of this part as a recipe another researcher will follow.
Be specific about quantities, timings, and conditions. For instance, "samples were incubated at 37°C for 12 hours" beats "samples were incubated."
Handle reused methods carefully. If you followed a published method exactly, cite it. However, if you modified it, describe your changes in full, because the reader cannot see them otherwise.
State your analysis clearly
Explain how you turned raw data into results. Reviewers scrutinise this closely, so leave no gaps.
Name each statistical test and say why you chose it. Then state your software and its version, your significance threshold, and how you handled missing data.
Our guide on statistical reporting pairs well here, because the analysis you describe in the methods must match the numbers you later report.
Include your ethics statement
Never leave this out. Many journals desk-reject a paper for a missing ethics statement alone.
State that an ethics committee or institutional review board approved the study. Include the approval reference number where you have one.
Then confirm informed consent where it applies. For double-blind submissions, name the committee generically, such as "the university's review board," so you do not reveal your identity.
Use clear subheadings
Long methods sections overwhelm readers without structure. So break yours into labelled subsections.
Common subheadings include Study Design, Participants, Materials, Procedure, and Statistical Analysis. Where possible, mirror the order of your results section, which helps readers move between the two.
This structure also helps you. Gaps become obvious when each subsection has a clear job.
Get the tense and voice right
Write the methods section in the past tense, because you completed the work before writing about it. "We recruited 120 participants" is correct; "we recruit" is not.
Voice is a style choice that varies by journal. Some prefer the passive voice here, while others prefer the active. So check the author guidelines, then stay consistent. Our guide on verb tenses in research papers covers this in more depth.
Reporting guidelines and checklists
Many journals now require a reporting checklist for your study type. These checklists exist precisely to ensure your methods are complete.
Common examples include CONSORT for trials, STROBE for observational studies, and PRISMA for systematic reviews. Complete the relevant one before you submit, because missing items are a frequent cause of desk rejection.
Common methods section mistakes
- Vague sampling, such as "participants were selected."
- A missing ethics statement, which alone can trigger rejection.
- Mixing in results, when numbers belong in the results section.
- Using the future tense, a sign the text was reused from a proposal.
- Citing a method without describing your version of it.
- Software named without version numbers.
- Too little detail for anyone to replicate the work.
- Too much irrelevant detail that buries what matters.
Fixing these is usually the fastest way to strengthen a weak paper. Moreover, specificity is the single clearest signal of methodological rigour.
Your methods section checklist
Run through these eight checks before submission:
- Another researcher could replicate your study from the text alone.
- The study design is named and briefly justified.
- Participant selection and sample size are fully described.
- Materials, equipment, and software include versions and sources.
- The procedure reads as a clear, ordered sequence.
- Every statistical test is named and justified.
- An ethics approval statement is present.
- No results or discussion have crept into the section.
Frequently asked questions
What should a methods section include? It should include five elements: the study design, the participants or materials with selection criteria, the procedure in order, the data analysis with named statistical tests, and an ethics approval statement. Together these let another researcher replicate the study.
Why do papers get rejected on the methods section? The most common reason is insufficient detail for reproducibility. Reviewers read the methods to judge whether the study is valid, and vague sampling, missing ethics statements, or undocumented procedures are frequent triggers for desk rejection.
What tense should the methods section use? Use the past tense, because you completed the work before writing about it, for example "We recruited 120 participants." Keep the tense consistent throughout the section.
How detailed should a methods section be? Detailed enough that a competent researcher in your field could replicate your study without contacting you. Include concrete numbers, criteria, quantities, timings, and software versions, but leave out irrelevant detail that does not affect reproducibility.
Should I use active or passive voice in the methods section? Both are acceptable, and the choice varies by journal. Some prefer the passive voice for describing procedures, while others prefer the active. Check your target journal's guidelines and apply one voice consistently.
Do I need to include an ethics statement in the methods? Yes, for any research involving humans or animals. State that an ethics committee or review board approved the study, include the approval number if you have one, and confirm informed consent where relevant. A missing statement can cause desk rejection.
The bottom line
A strong methods section is complete, ordered, and specific. Describe your design, participants, procedure, analysis, and ethics so clearly that someone else could repeat the study.
Above all, write for reproducibility. When a reviewer finishes your methods and knows exactly how to repeat your work, you have removed one of the biggest reasons papers get rejected.
Not sure your methods read clearly to an outside reader? PaperEdit's proofreading services and formatting services help ensure your manuscript is clear, consistent, and ready for submission.