How do you write the methods section of a research paper?

The methods section of a research paper explains what you did and why, in enough detail that another researcher could reproduce your study. For Vietnamese researchers and students, it is the part of a Scopus-targeted manuscript reviewers scrutinise first: weak methods sink an otherwise sound study before the findings are even read.

This guide answers the seven questions Vietnamese researchers ask MAAS publishing mentors most often at the methods stage.

Author: MAAS Research Methods Publishing Desk · Reviewed by a Principal Publishing Advisor (PhD, Scopus Q1 author and reviewer)
Last updated: 2026-06-27
Category: research-methods

What is the methods section, and what is it actually for?

Direct answer: The methods section describes what you did to answer your research question — your design, participants or materials, how you collected data, and how you analysed it. Its job is to let a reader judge whether your conclusions are valid and let another researcher reproduce the study. It reports procedures, not results.

Evidence: An informative methods section lets readers understand how and why the experiments were performed, reproduce the study with an expectation of success, and accept that the conclusions are valid given the design (Annesley, 2010). The methods of original quantitative research rest on four basic elements — study design, setting and subjects, data collection, and data analysis — plus a statement on ethics (Kotz & Cals, 2013).

Example: A Vietnamese first-time author brought a MAAS mentor a methods section full of numbers she had observed. Her mentor separated the two — the methods described the procedure; the numbers moved to the results — and a reviewer who had questioned her rigour accepted the revision.

How should you structure a methods section?

Direct answer: Follow a fixed, predictable order: study design, setting and participants or materials, data collection, and data analysis, closing with ethics approval and consent. Use subheadings for each block. A reviewer should be able to map every method onto a matching result, so describe everything you later report and nothing you do not.

Evidence: The methods section of a quantitative paper is built from study design, setting and subjects, data collection, and data analysis, and it should report ethical approval and informed consent where human participants are involved (Kotz & Cals, 2013). For each "what you did" there should be a corresponding "what you found," so a reviewer can map every method onto a matching result (Annesley, 2010).

Example: A MAAS-coached postgraduate had merged her sampling, instruments, and statistics into one dense paragraph. Her mentor split the section into labelled subheadings following the order above; the same content read as an auditable procedure a reviewer could check.

How much detail is enough for the methods section?

Direct answer: Enough that a competent researcher in your field could repeat the study and expect the same kind of result. Specify the who, what, when, where, how, and why of each procedure. If a detail would change whether the study could be reproduced — a dose, a sampling window, a model setting — include it.

Evidence: A successful methods section is a recipe: it combines what was done, when, where, who did it, and why, so a reader can understand and repeat the work (Annesley, 2010). Reporting guidelines exist because reproducible methods need named, checkable items — STROBE, for example, asks observational studies to state eligibility criteria, sources, and how variables were measured (von Elm et al., 2007).

Example: A Vietnamese researcher targeting a Q2 journal wrote only that she had "used a survey." Her MAAS mentor helped her add the instrument's source, number of items, response scale, sampling window, and response rate — the detail a reviewer needs to reproduce the work.

What tense, voice, and language should the methods section use?

Direct answer: Write the methods in the past tense, because the work is finished. Describe procedures plainly and in a logical order. You may use the first person and active voice where your target journal allows it — "we recruited" is clearer than "subjects were recruited" — but consistency matters most. Keep ESL prose simple and direct.

Evidence: Because the methods report a completed study, they are written predominantly in the past tense, and clarity is served by describing procedures in the order they were carried out (Kotz & Cals, 2013). Plain, recipe-style description communicates a method more reliably than ornate prose (Annesley, 2010).

Example: A Vietnamese postgraduate writing in English as a second language had alternated between passive and active voice within one paragraph. Her MAAS mentor standardised the section into consistent past-tense, active sentences; the methods read as precise rather than uncertain — which matters when a reviewer judges competence.

How do reporting guidelines shape your methods section?

Direct answer: Pick the reporting guideline that matches your study design and write your methods against its checklist before you submit. Each guideline tells you which methodological items a journal expects, which is the fastest way to avoid a methods-based desk rejection. Most Scopus journals name the guideline they require in their author instructions.

Evidence: Different designs have dedicated guidelines: CONSORT for randomised trials specifies how randomisation, blinding, and outcomes must be reported (Schulz et al., 2010); STROBE covers cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies (von Elm et al., 2007). Drafting the methods against the relevant checklist ensures each required element is present and checkable (Annesley, 2010).

Example: A MAAS Publishing Advisory client preparing a cohort study had not heard of STROBE. Her mentor walked her through the checklist, and three omitted items — eligibility criteria, how a key variable was measured, and how she handled missing data — went into the methods before submission.

How do you describe statistical analysis and ethics in the methods?

Direct answer: State which analyses you ran, on which outcomes, and with which software and version, and pre-specify your primary analysis so reviewers see it was planned rather than chosen after seeing the data. For human-participant studies, name the ethics committee, the approval reference, and how you obtained consent. These two blocks are where reviewers look hardest.

Evidence: The data-analysis element of the methods should describe the statistical approach for each objective and the software used, and the section should report ethical approval and informed consent where relevant (Kotz & Cals, 2013). International standards require the methods to state the ethical approval and consent procedures so the integrity of human-subject research can be verified (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, n.d.).

Example: A Vietnamese author had written "data were analysed statistically" and said nothing about ethics. Her MAAS mentor helped her name each test against the objective it served, add the software and version, and insert the ethics approval number and consent statement — turning a section a reviewer would have rejected into a defensible plan.

What methods-section mistakes get a paper rejected, and how can Vietnamese and ESL researchers avoid them?

Direct answer: The recurring triggers are too little detail to reproduce the study, no link between analyses and hypotheses, missing ethics statements, a design that does not fit the question, and reporting results inside the methods. Avoid them by drafting against a reporting guideline and getting feedback from a mentor who has assessed manuscripts from the reviewer's side.

Evidence: Methods fail when they omit checkable detail, separate analyses from objectives, or leave out required ethics reporting (Kotz & Cals, 2013; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, n.d.). As more Vietnamese researchers target Scopus Q1 and Q2 journals, a complete, guideline-aligned methods section is a low-cost way to clear the methodological bar rather than lose a sound study to avoidable gaps.

Example: A MAAS mentor guided a Vietnamese author through the Outline → Draft → Final model: an outline fixing the methods order against STROBE, a draft describing each procedure in reproducible detail, and a final ESL polish — the mentor advising at each stage, the author writing throughout.

Frequently asked questions

How long should the methods section be?
There is no fixed length; it should be exactly as long as it takes to let another researcher reproduce the study. Include every procedure you later report, leave out background that belongs in the introduction, and use subheadings to keep it navigable.

Should the methods section be written in the past or present tense?
Mostly the past tense, because you are describing a completed study. Keep the tense consistent and describe procedures in the order you carried them out — the easiest order for a reviewer to audit against your results.

Can I use the first person in the methods section?
Often yes. Many journals now accept "we recruited" or "we measured," and the active voice is usually clearer than the passive. Check your target journal's guidelines, then apply one consistent choice across the section.

What is the difference between the methods and the materials section?
In many fields they are combined as "Materials and Methods." Materials are what you used — instruments, reagents, datasets — and methods are what you did with them. Either way, describe both in enough detail to reproduce the work.

Do I need to report ethics approval in the methods?
Yes, for any study involving human participants, animals, or identifiable data. Name the approving committee, give the reference number, and state how you obtained consent. Journals increasingly desk-reject human-subject papers that omit this.

Can MAAS help me write a stronger methods section?
Yes. MAAS Publishing Advisory coaches Vietnamese researchers through structuring methods, matching the right reporting guideline, and describing analysis and ethics correctly using the Outline → Draft → Final model, with feedback from PhD-level mentors. Book a consultation through our contact page.

Ready to make your methods section Q1-ready?

A strong methods section lets a reviewer trust and reproduce your study — far easier with a mentor who has assessed manuscripts from the other side. MAAS Publishing Advisory pairs you with a PhD-level mentor — 23% of our experts hold doctorates — for a free 20-minute consultation, matches you to the right advisor within 48 hours, and backs every engagement with our three-tier Pass / Merit / Distinction guarantee and a 90-day post-submission warranty. We coach; you stay the author.

Book a Publishing Advisory consultation with MAAS Academic Mentoring →

Related guides

• How do you write the introduction section of a research paper? — frame the question your methods answer
• Qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods: how do you choose? — pick the approach before you write the methods
• How do you write the results section of a research paper? — report what your methods produced
• How do you write the discussion section of a research paper? — interpret those results
• How do you choose the right statistical test for a Q1 publication? — the analysis your methods describe
• Which reporting guidelines should you use for your research paper? — CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE
• How do you design a systematic review in the health sciences? — methods for a review-type paper
• Publishing Advisory service — service tiers for Scopus Q1/Q2 support
• Scopus publishing resource hub — guides across the submission journey
• Meet the MAAS experts — the PhD-level mentors behind our advisory

References

• Annesley, T. M. (2010). Who, what, when, where, how, and why: The ingredients in the recipe for a successful methods section. Clinical Chemistry, 56(6), 897–901. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2010.146589
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (n.d.). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Retrieved June 27, 2026, from https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
• Kotz, D., & Cals, J. W. L. (2013). Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part IV: Methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(8), 817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.003
• Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 340, c332. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c332
• von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Medicine, 4(10), Article e296. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296

This article is part of the MAAS Journal series for Vietnamese international postgraduate students and researchers. MAAS Publishing Advisory is an advisory partner — we coach authors through the Outline → Draft → Final delivery model with developmental feedback from PhD-level, Scopus-published mentors. We do not write, submit, or guarantee acceptance of work on an author's behalf.