Question: is it standard practice in some fields to have the "methods" section after the results and discussion sections (i.e. tacked onto the end of the paper)? I've just seen it for the first time, wondering if this is common.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @NoahHaber
Common in basic sciences. I've had it explained as the methods being by far the longest piece of the study, so left to the end
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @NoahHaber
Should also clarify that in some cases this is TRUE (if perhaps still not a great justification). Rodent studies, for example, often give the lineage of the animals, feeding schedules etc which can run to pages of info
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @NoahHaber
Fine, put that detail in the appendix. But the main details of the methods should be before the results. It's not a press release. EVERYTHING relies on the methods. They should be front and centre.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @PWGTennant @NoahHaber
Yeh I've seen that done and agree it's the best compromise. Short methods as usual, then a long appendix with the full methodology
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @PWGTennant
I would love it if we could have layered and embedded publications that were complete and didn't require appendices. E.g. the list of reagents is embedded here (click to expand). Ignorable if you don't need it, easy to find if you do, infinite potential word count.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
E.g. the code to produce the result figure is in the markdown for the result as one big beautiful sciencey document. I hate appendices and footnotes and works cited lists so very much. (yes, I know eLife exists)
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Wouldn't it be lovely if most big scientific journals with their enormous income were as technologically capable as the average blog?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.