Summary of "MethodsX – How to write and review a manuscript"
Main purpose and scope
- MethodsX is a multidisciplinary, open‑access journal (Elsevier) publishing short, templated articles that describe:
- novel methods,
- protocol modifications, or
- methodological review articles.
- All published articles are freely available.
- Accepted article types:
- Methods articles — new methods or modifications (any subject area).
- Protocol articles — new methods or modifications limited to life or health sciences.
- Review (MethodsX review) articles — invited overviews of methodological information on a specific topic.
- All submissions must follow the journal’s provided templates and include evidence of efficiency and/or comparisons with existing practices.
- Manuscripts undergo a quality check and then single‑blind peer review. (Journal planned to have an impact factor as of June 2023.)
How to prepare and write a MethodsX manuscript (step‑by‑step)
- Choose the correct template from the MethodsX homepage (templates vary by article type).
- Complete required sections (see next section for details).
- Upload the finished manuscript as a DOC file via Editorial Manager.
- Ensure the method/protocol is documented to be reproducible and reusable, and provide evidence or validation of the method’s effectiveness.
Required sections and key content rules
Common preliminaries for all article types
- Abstract: short summary of the method (max 200 words for methods/protocol; do not include references).
- Graphical abstract: concise pictorial summary of the article.
- Specifications table: classification details (e.g., method name, key properties).
- Ethics statement: conforming to Elsevier guidelines.
- CRediT author statement: individual author contributions.
- References: limits differ by article type (see below).
Methods / Protocol articles
- Main body should be titled “Method or protocol details” — this is the core section and has no word limit.
- Include step‑by‑step instructions, figures, tables, and any validation details necessary for replication.
- Reference limits: methods/protocol articles typically max ~25 references.
Important rule: No Results or Discussion sections are allowed in the “Method or protocol details” section. Validation details supporting reproducibility are permitted, but general Results/Discussion sections are not.
- If essential additional experiments or validation are required and missing, the usual editorial recommendation is to reject and invite resubmission after those experiments are completed.
Review articles (MethodsX review)
- Include an abstract and review highlights describing the value of the review.
- Main body should evaluate existing methods/knowledge, discuss limitations, and propose modifications or directions.
- References: higher limit (up to ~100).
- Review articles are assessed on comprehensiveness, authors’ understanding of methodological advances, identification of gaps, and presentation/flow.
Submission process
- Submit only via the online editorial system (Editorial Manager).
- Upload the manuscript in DOC format and ensure it follows the chosen template exactly.
Peer review process and reviewer expectations
- Single‑blind peer review: handling editors invite reviewers.
- Reviewers can register via the Elsevier Reviewer Hub.
Primary review criteria:
- Is the method/protocol description clear and does it make sense?
- Have the authors adequately explained the method’s utility to the community?
- Is the method suitable for generating the claimed data?
- Is the method/protocol well documented, reproducible, reusable, and easy to follow?
- Where does the value of the article lie (novelty, utility, accessibility)?
Differences in reviewing Methods/Protocol vs Review articles
- Methods/Protocol articles
- Focus on reproducibility, clarity, and whether the method can be followed and reused.
- No general Results/Discussion allowed outside validation.
- Check for serious methodological flaws that would render the work unsound/unpublishable.
- Review articles
- Focus on the importance and scope of the topic, comprehensiveness, and the authors’ understanding of methodological advances.
- Also comment on writing style, flow, and presentation.
Practical advice for reviewers
- Assess documentation quality, clarity of steps, reproducibility, adequacy of validation/comparison, and community value.
- Use the MethodsX templates and guidance to verify that required sections are present and correctly formatted.
Take‑home messages
- MethodsX publishes concise, templated method/protocol descriptions and methodological reviews that aim to improve reproducibility and open science.
- Strictly follow the journal’s templates and section rules.
- Ensure methods/protocols are documented for reuse and replication wherever possible.
- Submit via Editorial Manager and expect single‑blind peer review; reviewers should focus on reproducibility, clarity, utility, and soundness.
Useful resources
- MethodsX journal homepage
- Guide for authors (templates and instructions)
- Editorial Manager (submission portal)
- Microsoft templates for MethodsX article types
- Elsevier Reviewer Hub (register as reviewer)
- Reviewer guidance and tutorial materials
Speakers / sources featured
- Arunava Bose — Scientific Editor, MethodsX (presenter of the video)
- MethodsX (the journal) / Elsevier (publisher/platform)
- Editorial Manager (submission system) and Elsevier Reviewer Hub (reviewer registration/resource)
Category
Educational
Share this summary
Is the summary off?
If you think the summary is inaccurate, you can reprocess it with the latest model.
Preparing reprocess...