Methods Mad Libs: The Best-Written Manuscript Section

As I recently mentioned , prior to and since founding Data Soapbox, I’ve reviewed a *ton* of journal manuscripts. If I’m reviewing for a client or colleague, chances are, that draft is going back with a lot of (gently-phrased) suggestions. Not because I’m mean or nit-picky or want you to write the way I write, but because I want editors to have no choice but to accept your lovely paper.

Without fail, of the four primary scientific manuscript sections (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion), I have the fewest comments and suggestions about Methods. And I think I’ve figured out why:

Writing a Methods section is like playing Mad Libs without a sense of humor.

You know Mad Libs, right? You provide words of requested types (e.g., personal event, number, plural noun, -ing verb), write them into blank spaces in an otherwise boring passage, and hilarity ensues.

When I got back from my coronation, there were 1,200 elephants vomiting in my inbox.

Now imagine that you could see the entire passage as you worked and you were trying to be sensical instead of funny:

When I got back from my maternity leave, there were 1,200 e-mails waiting in my inbox.*

Here’s a Methods Section Mad Lib based on an article I recently co-authored:

METHODS

Setting and participants

This study took place in the [geographic area] area. Inclusion criteria for participants included: [inclusion criteria]. Individuals were ineligible to participate in the study if they were [exclusion criteria].

Recruitment

We recruited participants from [participant source] by [recruitment method].

Data collection

The research team obtained consent by [consent procedure].

We collected data via [data collection method]. Data collection took place in [data collection setting].

Following consent, participants were asked to [data collection procedure, amount and types of data collected].

Data analysis

We analyzed data by [analytic strategy] using [analytic software].

Now, Methods Mad Libs for individual manuscripts will vary. You might need to include additional elements, like affirmation of institutional review board approval, recruitment rates, consent rates, and participant demographics. You might need to describe multiple types or instances of data collection. You might be doing research with something other than humans, like wild animals, rocks, or weather.

The bottom line is that, within a particular field and type of research, scientists generally write the same types of information in the same order within a Methods section; they just plug in the concrete, objective, known information for this specific study. That organization is logical, and it is very familiar to scientists. As a result, a reviewer may disagree with what you did, but there’s usually not much they can criticize about how you wrote about it.

I think the Mad Libs format of a typical Methods section gives insight into how we might improve the quality of other manuscript sections. I’ll turn to those sections in a future post!

*True story.