The ‘Materials and Methods’ section of an interesting paper has the potential to be either extremely valuable or completely infuriating. Comprehensive, detailed protocols provide invaluable technical information and can save future researchers literally months of work. Conversely, brief, low-resolution methods (often meta-referencing old papers) inhibit the understanding of reported results and can seduce future researchers into experiments that will never work.

However, even the best published protocols have their nuances.

For example, most researchers have experienced the ‘secret trick’ phenomena; whereby an additional piece of technical knowhow - not reported in the published protocol - is required for a method to work correctly. (For example, when quizzing an author on their protocol, a formal answer might also include the footnote: “Ahhh yes, well, also, if you just indiscriminately whack X a few times we’ve noticed that helps Y catalyse Z”.) Such unpublished nuances exist in every lab I’ve ever worked in and their absence from formal literature is not deliberately disingenuous. However, their existence provides an insight into how technical protocols develop: Often by trial and error; limited by the reagents and time available to their authors.

Although detailing methodological serendipity does not appear to be welcomed by peer-reviewed journals, a recent twitter meme entitled #overlyhonestmethods provides researchers with a new medium to ‘publish’ the sincere origins of their protocols.

Beckie Port curates a few favorites.

Despite being predictably tongue-in-cheek, the thriving success of such a meme perfectly illustrates the widespread bias, chaos and unpredictability of research methodology.