To advance scientific progress, experiments need to be independently repeated, confirmed, and then built upon. To faithfully reproduce an experiment, proper execution of the technique is key, which requires clear discussion on the methods and techniques used. However, many authors (and publishers alike) put little or no emphasis on how an experiment is performed. Too often, methods are relegated to the supplemental information or, if lucky, minimal information is provided within a small section in the manuscript. To truly progress science, authors must restore importance to how they obtain their data. It’s like high school math class; you have to show your work to get credit.
I know I’m biased. I am the Editorial Director of a methods journal. But, I too was once a bench scientist. I suffered from the same issues that all basic researchers suffer from: How do you reproduce an experiment at your bench when you only have 50 words describing a complicated technique? I was once trying to replicate an in vivo electroporation technique and there were some incredible results-based articles on the topic, but few that actually described how to do this in detail. Before investing copious amounts of time, energy and precious grant money in trying something new, I decided to contact one of the authors to get the all important details. Luckily, the author was extremely helpful and told me all of the conditions and tricks on how to execute the technique. However, this won't always be the case. I can only imagine trying to replicate these experiments without his help; I would have wasted time and money on that single technique. As a grad student hoping to publish a high impact article and to move on to the next big thing, this could have been catastrophic.
We need to get away from the fact that methods are considered an afterthought when publishing. With the page limitations for the majority of scholarly publications, most authors provide minimal information in the materials and methods section. With just a small number of lines of text, it is not surprising that few can actually understand the basics of a complex technique, much less reproduce the nuances of it. Even with online supplemental methods sections, many authors compile only the basic steps of a protocol, as this is not “worth the effort… nobody reads the methods section.” Frequently, authors will even copy and paste their methods sections from one article to the next, even if there were minor adaptations along the way. Putting aside the complications of self-plagiarism, by doing so over many years, authors fail to account for protocol drift. Thus, when the next lab comes to reproduce the experiments, is there any wonder as to why there are significant issues with reproducibility?
We all want our experiments to be repeated and built upon, in fact, the very nature of the scientific process demands it. The best way to do that is to show people how to perform the techniques. To this end, authors should either dedicate more space in their articles to their methods, or, if there is not sufficient space provided in the manuscript, authors should publish detailed supplemental information. Alternatively, more complicated techniques should be published in extraordinary detail in a methods journal. Here, scientists can delve into the nuances of what makes this experiment work.
