Let’s face it: rejection stings. Especially when it happens before your paper even has a chance to shine in peer review.

But here’s the kicker—it’s not your results.

It’s not even your abstract.

It’s your METHODS section.

A sloppy, unclear, or underwhelming methods section can destroy trust.

And trust? It’s the currency of academic publishing.

Without it, your paper’s chances? Next to none.

So how do you transform your methods section into a trust-building masterpiece?

1️⃣ Add SUBHEADINGS for Clarity

Let me hit you with a startling fact:

The average reader spends less than 7 minutes on a manuscript.

Seven. Minutes.

And let’s be real—nobody wants to wade through a dense wall of text.

That means your methods section isn’t just for completeness—it’s for survival.

Reviewers skim. Editors skim.

So your methods section should be skimmable. Effortless to navigate.

And one way to do this is with the use of “subheadings”.

Proven Subheadings to Structure Your Section:

• Study Design: Clearly describe the type of study (e.g., retrospective cohort, cross-sectional, RCT).
• Setting/Data Source: Where did your data come from? Provide enough detail for replication.
• Patient Population: Who was included? Who was excluded? Make it precise.
• Study Variables: Break it down:
  • Exposure: Define the key variable you’re studying.
  • Covariates of Interest: List additional variables included in your models.
  • Outcome: Outline clearly how you defined your outcome.
• Statistical Analysis: Separate into clear paragraphs:
  • Descriptive Analysis: Outline basic stats (e.g., means, percentages, chi-squares).
  • Analytic Approach: Detail your models (e.g., logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier curves).

Why This Works

Subheadings act like a roadmap for your readers. They show them exactly where to find critical details.

And in a world of short attention spans, this structure keeps readers engaged.

2️⃣ Explain the “WHY”

Here’s where most papers fall flat: They tell you the what and how, but not the why.

The best methods sections? They go deeper. They justify. They connect the dots.

What to Explain:

• Why this method? What makes it the best approach for your research question?
• Why not another method? Briefly acknowledge why alternatives weren’t used.
• Why does this step matter? Show how it aligns with your research question and study objective.

Example

Instead of saying:

“We used factor analysis of mixed data (FAMD).”

Elevate it:

“Since most of the important disease-specific variables for psoriatic arthritis were highly correlated, we first used factor analysis of mixed data (FAMD) to reduce dimensionality and improve interpretability. FAMD is similar to PCA but can handle mixed data (FactoMineR package in R), unlike PCA which can only handle continuous data.

Notice the difference? The second version builds trust. It shows intention. It communicates expertise.

It clearly states WHY we chose FAMD. And WHY we did FAMD and not PCA.

Also this is a great way to add “STORY” to your data. Who told you that the methods section has to be boring?

Example:

“Designing this study was uniquely challenging due to limited access to patient-level data. To overcome this, we utilized a synthetic control arm, leveraging historical datasets to strengthen our comparisons.”

A little storytelling goes a long way in engaging your readers.

Why This Matters

When your methods section is clear, logical, and well-structured:

• Reviewers trust your work.
• Editors see your paper as polished and professional.
• You reduce the risk of desk rejection.

This isn’t just about getting published. It’s about showcasing your rigor and setting the tone for your entire paper.

This Week’s Action Step

• Go back to your last manuscript and review the methods section.
• Add subheadings if they’re missing.
• For each major method, write a sentence or two explaining the why behind your choices.

And if you want to elevate your methods section even further? Grab my manuscript outline template HERE.