Editorial

[Link]

Making the most of the Methods

Check for updates

Clear methods reporting is key for

reliable and reproducible science and
can also prevent an extended review
process. We highlight Methods
section requirements for a more
efficient publication process.

T
he Nature Portfolio style places
a relatively short Methods sec-
tion as the final section of our
manuscripts. For Nature Climate
Change, this section is published
online only, after the main text, and allows
approximately 3,000 words. However, this
position and suggested length should not be
interpreted as a judgement on the importance
of the Methods section.
Getting the methods right is a key part of the field. This involves the inclusion of infor- Outside the paper itself we generally ask
open, transparent and reliable science. As mation on data collection and location, and that manuscripts reporting original data
a first step, sufficiently detailed and clearly data processing, for example. Certain infor- include a full reporting summary, and that
understandable methods are a requirement mation — such as ethics approval for research a software and code checklist be completed
for our reviewers to both understand and with human participants and animals — is for those with original code development.
assess the quality of the work. It is not uncom- mandatory. These are completed before the paper is sent
mon that reviewers comment on missing or Writing methods also goes beyond just the to review, and updated before final publica-
unclear methodological information in the Methods section itself and can require a bit of tion of the work. Any metanalyses should also
first round of review, or insufficient access repetition. For example, to ease reading and include ROSES (RepOrting standards for Sys-
to data and code. These issues can effectively to give the reader confidence in the approach tematic Evidence Syntheses) or PRISMA (Pre-
block the review process — preventing com- and results, we request that a brief methods ferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews
prehensive assessment at the first round and description (what was done and why) be and Meta-Analyses) workflows. Finally, given
adding multiple rounds of review to the time- included in the main text, and that caveats and the recent and rapid rise of machine learning
line of a paper, while increasing author and limitations also be given some space. Moreo- and its proliferation into different fields, the
reviewer burden. ver, independently of whether the information Nature Portfolio has developed a machine
We want to acknowledge that this may arise is already provided in the Methods section, all learning checklist, covering reproducibility,
in part because our formatting guidelines relevant manuscripts must include a separate datasets, model and training, evaluation and
seem to suggest that ‘shorter is better’. But data availability statement and a code avail- computational resources used that authors
while we do ask for succinctness, this should ability statement that act as a one-stop shop may consider useful to ensure sufficient
not come at the cost of information loss. As for reviewers and readers to access all data and details for readers. Ultimately, these check-
methods get more complex, and science code used to produce the results of the paper. lists and guidelines are founded on the under-
more interdisciplinary, we urge our authors To facilitate the review process, data and code standing that good research should follow
to take the time and space to ensure that their should also be made available to reviewers at best practices, including in the reporting step.
methods are fit for purpose. If the space in the the time of review. Note that there are some Overall, completing the Methods section
Methods section is not sufficient, we strongly exceptions possible (for example, for sensi- and associated documents and populating
encourage more details to be provided in the tive data), which should be discussed with the repositories is an investment of authors’ time.
Supplementary Information section. editor, while deposition of some data types But we hope that providing these details in
The Methods section should explain in is mandatory. Before publication, data and full is rewarded by facilitating a smoother
CREDIT: PABLOHART / E+ / GETTY IMAGES

detail what was done, how it was done and why code should be made publicly available in a assessment of the manuscript and ultimately
it was done (see our reporting standards). As persistent repository (for example, Figshare, increases the accessibility and reproducibility
a general guideline, a reader should be able github or Code Ocean) and assigned a doi that of the research.
to reproduce the results of the study if they is cited in the Methods reference list (see the
have a basic understanding of the methods of Springer Nature research data policy). Published online: 5 August 2025

nature climate change Volume 15 | August 2025 | 803 | 803