The importance of clear methods descriptions in research papers

, explore and develop knowledge for the sake of knowledge development and scientific discourse. Demands for constant fund seeking and expectations to gethigh citation indexes spur investigators to do “fast-track research”, that should be readily applied in the workplace. The length of papers has shortened, which spurs superfi-cial reporting of studies. However, evidence-based nursing is importantto achieve high quality patient outcomes, and evidence relies on rigorous study designs being clearly described in research papers.High research quality depends not only on unambiguous problem statements and clear research questions based on sound literature reviews. It is also crucial to reassure a good fit between research problem, research paradigm and methods.A description of the theoretical framework guiding the study and unambig-uous conceptual definitions of the concepts under investigation are critical to assure transparency and transferability – even in quantitative studies. To demonstrate application of ethical guidelines it’s not enough to just report ethics board approval. Moreover, the appropriateness of procedures used to safeguard study participants, e.g. what was done to reduce risks and maximize benefits of for theparticipants/subjects has to be explained in a paper.The methods section should demonstrate the most rigorous possible design to achieve the study purpose. How about consistency between research question(s), hypotheses, state of the art literature and the concep-tual framework of the study? Are hypotheses specific and clearly worded? What are the key variables and do they match with the study population? To ensure interpretabilityof study results, the readers must know if the methods and numbers of data collection points were appropriate in light of the research problem. Well-written research shows what was done to minimize bias or threats to internal, construct and external validity. What was the attrition rate? Was blinding used? And if: who or what was blinded? Sample-representativeness can be judged given the sampling strategy and procedures are highlighted, and if the participants/population is described in detail. Reporting the results of a power analysis is needed to judge the appropriateness of sample sizes and treatment effects.When it comes to measurement, operationalization of variables, scoring procedures and reports about instruments - including results of psychometric testing - are important. How about the match between instrument choice with regard to the purpose, sample and context of the study? What was done to reassure validity and reliability of measurements? In diagnostic studies, reporting specificity and sensitivity information of instruments is important.Generalizable intervention studies depend on specific descriptions of standardized study interventions: What was done, when, how often, by whom? How was the intervention controlled to make sure it was performed equally and/or as outlined in the study proposal? Was the researcher part of the intervention team? How were persons trained to perform the intervention, and what was done to reduce bias? In RCTs, best evidence relies on addressing all elements – manipulation, randomization, control – as equally important and by using appropriate statistical analyses.