methodology in paper

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 6. The Methodology
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The methods section describes actions taken to investigate a research problem and the rationale for the application of specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze information applied to understanding the problem, thereby, allowing the reader to critically evaluate a study’s overall validity and reliability. The methodology section of a research paper answers two main questions: How was the data collected or generated? And, how was it analyzed? The writing should be direct and precise and always written in the past tense.

Kallet, Richard H. "How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper." Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004): 1229-1232.

Importance of a Good Methodology Section

You must explain how you obtained and analyzed your results for the following reasons:

• Readers need to know how the data was obtained because the method you chose affects the results and, by extension, how you interpreted their significance in the discussion section of your paper.
• Methodology is crucial for any branch of scholarship because an unreliable method produces unreliable results and, as a consequence, undermines the value of your analysis of the findings.
• In most cases, there are a variety of different methods you can choose to investigate a research problem. The methodology section of your paper should clearly articulate the reasons why you have chosen a particular procedure or technique.
• The reader wants to know that the data was collected or generated in a way that is consistent with accepted practice in the field of study. For example, if you are using a multiple choice questionnaire, readers need to know that it offered your respondents a reasonable range of answers to choose from.
• The method must be appropriate to fulfilling the overall aims of the study. For example, you need to ensure that you have a large enough sample size to be able to generalize and make recommendations based upon the findings.
• The methodology should discuss the problems that were anticipated and the steps you took to prevent them from occurring. For any problems that do arise, you must describe the ways in which they were minimized or why these problems do not impact in any meaningful way your interpretation of the findings.
• In the social and behavioral sciences, it is important to always provide sufficient information to allow other researchers to adopt or replicate your methodology. This information is particularly important when a new method has been developed or an innovative use of an existing method is utilized.

Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article. Psychology Writing Center. University of Washington; Denscombe, Martyn. The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects . 5th edition. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 2014; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Groups of Research Methods

There are two main groups of research methods in the social sciences:

• The e mpirical-analytical group approaches the study of social sciences in a similar manner that researchers study the natural sciences . This type of research focuses on objective knowledge, research questions that can be answered yes or no, and operational definitions of variables to be measured. The empirical-analytical group employs deductive reasoning that uses existing theory as a foundation for formulating hypotheses that need to be tested. This approach is focused on explanation.
• The i nterpretative group of methods is focused on understanding phenomenon in a comprehensive, holistic way . Interpretive methods focus on analytically disclosing the meaning-making practices of human subjects [the why, how, or by what means people do what they do], while showing how those practices arrange so that it can be used to generate observable outcomes. Interpretive methods allow you to recognize your connection to the phenomena under investigation. However, the interpretative group requires careful examination of variables because it focuses more on subjective knowledge.

II.  Content

The introduction to your methodology section should begin by restating the research problem and underlying assumptions underpinning your study. This is followed by situating the methods you used to gather, analyze, and process information within the overall “tradition” of your field of study and within the particular research design you have chosen to study the problem. If the method you choose lies outside of the tradition of your field [i.e., your review of the literature demonstrates that the method is not commonly used], provide a justification for how your choice of methods specifically addresses the research problem in ways that have not been utilized in prior studies.

The remainder of your methodology section should describe the following:

• Decisions made in selecting the data you have analyzed or, in the case of qualitative research, the subjects and research setting you have examined,
• Tools and methods used to identify and collect information, and how you identified relevant variables,
• The ways in which you processed the data and the procedures you used to analyze that data, and
• The specific research tools or strategies that you utilized to study the underlying hypothesis and research questions.

In addition, an effectively written methodology section should:

• Introduce the overall methodological approach for investigating your research problem . Is your study qualitative or quantitative or a combination of both (mixed method)? Are you going to take a special approach, such as action research, or a more neutral stance?
• Indicate how the approach fits the overall research design . Your methods for gathering data should have a clear connection to your research problem. In other words, make sure that your methods will actually address the problem. One of the most common deficiencies found in research papers is that the proposed methodology is not suitable to achieving the stated objective of your paper.
• Describe the specific methods of data collection you are going to use , such as, surveys, interviews, questionnaires, observation, archival research. If you are analyzing existing data, such as a data set or archival documents, describe how it was originally created or gathered and by whom. Also be sure to explain how older data is still relevant to investigating the current research problem.
• Explain how you intend to analyze your results . Will you use statistical analysis? Will you use specific theoretical perspectives to help you analyze a text or explain observed behaviors? Describe how you plan to obtain an accurate assessment of relationships, patterns, trends, distributions, and possible contradictions found in the data.
• Provide background and a rationale for methodologies that are unfamiliar for your readers . Very often in the social sciences, research problems and the methods for investigating them require more explanation/rationale than widely accepted rules governing the natural and physical sciences. Be clear and concise in your explanation.
• Provide a justification for subject selection and sampling procedure . For instance, if you propose to conduct interviews, how do you intend to select the sample population? If you are analyzing texts, which texts have you chosen, and why? If you are using statistics, why is this set of data being used? If other data sources exist, explain why the data you chose is most appropriate to addressing the research problem.
• Provide a justification for case study selection . A common method of analyzing research problems in the social sciences is to analyze specific cases. These can be a person, place, event, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis that are either examined as a singular topic of in-depth investigation or multiple topics of investigation studied for the purpose of comparing or contrasting findings. In either method, you should explain why a case or cases were chosen and how they specifically relate to the research problem.
• Describe potential limitations . Are there any practical limitations that could affect your data collection? How will you attempt to control for potential confounding variables and errors? If your methodology may lead to problems you can anticipate, state this openly and show why pursuing this methodology outweighs the risk of these problems cropping up.

NOTE :   Once you have written all of the elements of the methods section, subsequent revisions should focus on how to present those elements as clearly and as logically as possibly. The description of how you prepared to study the research problem, how you gathered the data, and the protocol for analyzing the data should be organized chronologically. For clarity, when a large amount of detail must be presented, information should be presented in sub-sections according to topic. If necessary, consider using appendices for raw data.

ANOTHER NOTE : If you are conducting a qualitative analysis of a research problem , the methodology section generally requires a more elaborate description of the methods used as well as an explanation of the processes applied to gathering and analyzing of data than is generally required for studies using quantitative methods. Because you are the primary instrument for generating the data [e.g., through interviews or observations], the process for collecting that data has a significantly greater impact on producing the findings. Therefore, qualitative research requires a more detailed description of the methods used.

YET ANOTHER NOTE :   If your study involves interviews, observations, or other qualitative techniques involving human subjects , you may be required to obtain approval from the university's Office for the Protection of Research Subjects before beginning your research. This is not a common procedure for most undergraduate level student research assignments. However, i f your professor states you need approval, you must include a statement in your methods section that you received official endorsement and adequate informed consent from the office and that there was a clear assessment and minimization of risks to participants and to the university. This statement informs the reader that your study was conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. In some cases, the approval notice is included as an appendix to your paper.

III.  Problems to Avoid

Irrelevant Detail The methodology section of your paper should be thorough but concise. Do not provide any background information that does not directly help the reader understand why a particular method was chosen, how the data was gathered or obtained, and how the data was analyzed in relation to the research problem [note: analyzed, not interpreted! Save how you interpreted the findings for the discussion section]. With this in mind, the page length of your methods section will generally be less than any other section of your paper except the conclusion.

Unnecessary Explanation of Basic Procedures Remember that you are not writing a how-to guide about a particular method. You should make the assumption that readers possess a basic understanding of how to investigate the research problem on their own and, therefore, you do not have to go into great detail about specific methodological procedures. The focus should be on how you applied a method , not on the mechanics of doing a method. An exception to this rule is if you select an unconventional methodological approach; if this is the case, be sure to explain why this approach was chosen and how it enhances the overall process of discovery.

Problem Blindness It is almost a given that you will encounter problems when collecting or generating your data, or, gaps will exist in existing data or archival materials. Do not ignore these problems or pretend they did not occur. Often, documenting how you overcame obstacles can form an interesting part of the methodology. It demonstrates to the reader that you can provide a cogent rationale for the decisions you made to minimize the impact of any problems that arose.

Literature Review Just as the literature review section of your paper provides an overview of sources you have examined while researching a particular topic, the methodology section should cite any sources that informed your choice and application of a particular method [i.e., the choice of a survey should include any citations to the works you used to help construct the survey].

It’s More than Sources of Information! A description of a research study's method should not be confused with a description of the sources of information. Such a list of sources is useful in and of itself, especially if it is accompanied by an explanation about the selection and use of the sources. The description of the project's methodology complements a list of sources in that it sets forth the organization and interpretation of information emanating from those sources.

Azevedo, L.F. et al. "How to Write a Scientific Paper: Writing the Methods Section." Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia 17 (2011): 232-238; Blair Lorrie. “Choosing a Methodology.” In Writing a Graduate Thesis or Dissertation , Teaching Writing Series. (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers 2016), pp. 49-72; Butin, Dan W. The Education Dissertation A Guide for Practitioner Scholars . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2010; Carter, Susan. Structuring Your Research Thesis . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012; Kallet, Richard H. “How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper.” Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004):1229-1232; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008. Methods Section. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Rudestam, Kjell Erik and Rae R. Newton. “The Method Chapter: Describing Your Research Plan.” In Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process . (Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 2015), pp. 87-115; What is Interpretive Research. Institute of Public and International Affairs, University of Utah; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Methods and Materials. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College.

Writing Tip

Statistical Designs and Tests? Do Not Fear Them!

Don't avoid using a quantitative approach to analyzing your research problem just because you fear the idea of applying statistical designs and tests. A qualitative approach, such as conducting interviews or content analysis of archival texts, can yield exciting new insights about a research problem, but it should not be undertaken simply because you have a disdain for running a simple regression. A well designed quantitative research study can often be accomplished in very clear and direct ways, whereas, a similar study of a qualitative nature usually requires considerable time to analyze large volumes of data and a tremendous burden to create new paths for analysis where previously no path associated with your research problem had existed.

To locate data and statistics, GO HERE .

Another Writing Tip

Knowing the Relationship Between Theories and Methods

There can be multiple meaning associated with the term "theories" and the term "methods" in social sciences research. A helpful way to delineate between them is to understand "theories" as representing different ways of characterizing the social world when you research it and "methods" as representing different ways of generating and analyzing data about that social world. Framed in this way, all empirical social sciences research involves theories and methods, whether they are stated explicitly or not. However, while theories and methods are often related, it is important that, as a researcher, you deliberately separate them in order to avoid your theories playing a disproportionate role in shaping what outcomes your chosen methods produce.

Introspectively engage in an ongoing dialectic between the application of theories and methods to help enable you to use the outcomes from your methods to interrogate and develop new theories, or ways of framing conceptually the research problem. This is how scholarship grows and branches out into new intellectual territory.

Reynolds, R. Larry. Ways of Knowing. Alternative Microeconomics . Part 1, Chapter 3. Boise State University; The Theory-Method Relationship. S-Cool Revision. United Kingdom.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Methods and the Methodology

Do not confuse the terms "methods" and "methodology." As Schneider notes, a method refers to the technical steps taken to do research . Descriptions of methods usually include defining and stating why you have chosen specific techniques to investigate a research problem, followed by an outline of the procedures you used to systematically select, gather, and process the data [remember to always save the interpretation of data for the discussion section of your paper].

The methodology refers to a discussion of the underlying reasoning why particular methods were used . This discussion includes describing the theoretical concepts that inform the choice of methods to be applied, placing the choice of methods within the more general nature of academic work, and reviewing its relevance to examining the research problem. The methodology section also includes a thorough review of the methods other scholars have used to study the topic.

Bryman, Alan. "Of Methods and Methodology." Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 3 (2008): 159-168; Schneider, Florian. “What's in a Methodology: The Difference between Method, Methodology, and Theory…and How to Get the Balance Right?” PoliticsEastAsia.com. Chinese Department, University of Leiden, Netherlands.

• << Previous: Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Next: Qualitative Methods >>
• Last Updated: May 15, 2024 9:53 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is Research Methodology? Definition, Types, and Examples

Research methodology 1,2 is a structured and scientific approach used to collect, analyze, and interpret quantitative or qualitative data to answer research questions or test hypotheses. A research methodology is like a plan for carrying out research and helps keep researchers on track by limiting the scope of the research. Several aspects must be considered before selecting an appropriate research methodology, such as research limitations and ethical concerns that may affect your research.

The research methodology section in a scientific paper describes the different methodological choices made, such as the data collection and analysis methods, and why these choices were selected. The reasons should explain why the methods chosen are the most appropriate to answer the research question. A good research methodology also helps ensure the reliability and validity of the research findings. There are three types of research methodology—quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method, which can be chosen based on the research objectives.

What is research methodology ?

A research methodology describes the techniques and procedures used to identify and analyze information regarding a specific research topic. It is a process by which researchers design their study so that they can achieve their objectives using the selected research instruments. It includes all the important aspects of research, including research design, data collection methods, data analysis methods, and the overall framework within which the research is conducted. While these points can help you understand what is research methodology, you also need to know why it is important to pick the right methodology.

Why is research methodology important?

Having a good research methodology in place has the following advantages: 3

• Helps other researchers who may want to replicate your research; the explanations will be of benefit to them.
• You can easily answer any questions about your research if they arise at a later stage.
• A research methodology provides a framework and guidelines for researchers to clearly define research questions, hypotheses, and objectives.
• It helps researchers identify the most appropriate research design, sampling technique, and data collection and analysis methods.
• A sound research methodology helps researchers ensure that their findings are valid and reliable and free from biases and errors.
• It also helps ensure that ethical guidelines are followed while conducting research.
• A good research methodology helps researchers in planning their research efficiently, by ensuring optimum usage of their time and resources.

Writing the methods section of a research paper? Let Paperpal help you achieve perfection

Types of research methodology.

There are three types of research methodology based on the type of research and the data required. 1

• Quantitative research methodology focuses on measuring and testing numerical data. This approach is good for reaching a large number of people in a short amount of time. This type of research helps in testing the causal relationships between variables, making predictions, and generalizing results to wider populations.
• Qualitative research methodology examines the opinions, behaviors, and experiences of people. It collects and analyzes words and textual data. This research methodology requires fewer participants but is still more time consuming because the time spent per participant is quite large. This method is used in exploratory research where the research problem being investigated is not clearly defined.
• Mixed-method research methodology uses the characteristics of both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies in the same study. This method allows researchers to validate their findings, verify if the results observed using both methods are complementary, and explain any unexpected results obtained from one method by using the other method.

What are the types of sampling designs in research methodology?

Sampling 4 is an important part of a research methodology and involves selecting a representative sample of the population to conduct the study, making statistical inferences about them, and estimating the characteristics of the whole population based on these inferences. There are two types of sampling designs in research methodology—probability and nonprobability.

• Probability sampling

In this type of sampling design, a sample is chosen from a larger population using some form of random selection, that is, every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. The different types of probability sampling are:

• Systematic —sample members are chosen at regular intervals. It requires selecting a starting point for the sample and sample size determination that can be repeated at regular intervals. This type of sampling method has a predefined range; hence, it is the least time consuming.
• Stratified —researchers divide the population into smaller groups that don’t overlap but represent the entire population. While sampling, these groups can be organized, and then a sample can be drawn from each group separately.
• Cluster —the population is divided into clusters based on demographic parameters like age, sex, location, etc.
• Convenience —selects participants who are most easily accessible to researchers due to geographical proximity, availability at a particular time, etc.
• Purposive —participants are selected at the researcher’s discretion. Researchers consider the purpose of the study and the understanding of the target audience.
• Snowball —already selected participants use their social networks to refer the researcher to other potential participants.
• Quota —while designing the study, the researchers decide how many people with which characteristics to include as participants. The characteristics help in choosing people most likely to provide insights into the subject.

What are data collection methods?

During research, data are collected using various methods depending on the research methodology being followed and the research methods being undertaken. Both qualitative and quantitative research have different data collection methods, as listed below.

Qualitative research 5

• One-on-one interviews: Helps the interviewers understand a respondent’s subjective opinion and experience pertaining to a specific topic or event
• Document study/literature review/record keeping: Researchers’ review of already existing written materials such as archives, annual reports, research articles, guidelines, policy documents, etc.
• Focus groups: Constructive discussions that usually include a small sample of about 6-10 people and a moderator, to understand the participants’ opinion on a given topic.
• Qualitative observation : Researchers collect data using their five senses (sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing).

Quantitative research 6

• Sampling: The most common type is probability sampling.
• Interviews: Commonly telephonic or done in-person.
• Observations: Structured observations are most commonly used in quantitative research. In this method, researchers make observations about specific behaviors of individuals in a structured setting.
• Document review: Reviewing existing research or documents to collect evidence for supporting the research.
• Surveys and questionnaires. Surveys can be administered both online and offline depending on the requirement and sample size.

Let Paperpal help you write the perfect research methods section. Start now!

What are data analysis methods.

The data collected using the various methods for qualitative and quantitative research need to be analyzed to generate meaningful conclusions. These data analysis methods 7 also differ between quantitative and qualitative research.

Quantitative research involves a deductive method for data analysis where hypotheses are developed at the beginning of the research and precise measurement is required. The methods include statistical analysis applications to analyze numerical data and are grouped into two categories—descriptive and inferential.

Descriptive analysis is used to describe the basic features of different types of data to present it in a way that ensures the patterns become meaningful. The different types of descriptive analysis methods are:

• Measures of frequency (count, percent, frequency)
• Measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode)
• Measures of dispersion or variation (range, variance, standard deviation)
• Measure of position (percentile ranks, quartile ranks)

Inferential analysis is used to make predictions about a larger population based on the analysis of the data collected from a smaller population. This analysis is used to study the relationships between different variables. Some commonly used inferential data analysis methods are:

• Correlation: To understand the relationship between two or more variables.
• Cross-tabulation: Analyze the relationship between multiple variables.
• Regression analysis: Study the impact of independent variables on the dependent variable.
• Frequency tables: To understand the frequency of data.
• Analysis of variance: To test the degree to which two or more variables differ in an experiment.

Qualitative research involves an inductive method for data analysis where hypotheses are developed after data collection. The methods include:

• Content analysis: For analyzing documented information from text and images by determining the presence of certain words or concepts in texts.
• Narrative analysis: For analyzing content obtained from sources such as interviews, field observations, and surveys. The stories and opinions shared by people are used to answer research questions.
• Discourse analysis: For analyzing interactions with people considering the social context, that is, the lifestyle and environment, under which the interaction occurs.
• Grounded theory: Involves hypothesis creation by data collection and analysis to explain why a phenomenon occurred.
• Thematic analysis: To identify important themes or patterns in data and use these to address an issue.

How to choose a research methodology?

Here are some important factors to consider when choosing a research methodology: 8

• Research objectives, aims, and questions —these would help structure the research design.
• Review existing literature to identify any gaps in knowledge.
• Check the statistical requirements —if data-driven or statistical results are needed then quantitative research is the best. If the research questions can be answered based on people’s opinions and perceptions, then qualitative research is most suitable.
• Sample size —sample size can often determine the feasibility of a research methodology. For a large sample, less effort- and time-intensive methods are appropriate.
• Constraints —constraints of time, geography, and resources can help define the appropriate methodology.

Got writer’s block? Kickstart your research paper writing with Paperpal now!

How to write a research methodology .

A research methodology should include the following components: 3,9

• Research design —should be selected based on the research question and the data required. Common research designs include experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational, descriptive, and exploratory.
• Research method —this can be quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method.
• Reason for selecting a specific methodology —explain why this methodology is the most suitable to answer your research problem.
• Research instruments —explain the research instruments you plan to use, mainly referring to the data collection methods such as interviews, surveys, etc. Here as well, a reason should be mentioned for selecting the particular instrument.
• Sampling —this involves selecting a representative subset of the population being studied.
• Data collection —involves gathering data using several data collection methods, such as surveys, interviews, etc.
• Data analysis —describe the data analysis methods you will use once you’ve collected the data.
• Research limitations —mention any limitations you foresee while conducting your research.
• Validity and reliability —validity helps identify the accuracy and truthfulness of the findings; reliability refers to the consistency and stability of the results over time and across different conditions.
• Ethical considerations —research should be conducted ethically. The considerations include obtaining consent from participants, maintaining confidentiality, and addressing conflicts of interest.

Streamline Your Research Paper Writing Process with Paperpal

The methods section is a critical part of the research papers, allowing researchers to use this to understand your findings and replicate your work when pursuing their own research. However, it is usually also the most difficult section to write. This is where Paperpal can help you overcome the writer’s block and create the first draft in minutes with Paperpal Copilot, its secure generative AI feature suite.  

With Paperpal you can get research advice, write and refine your work, rephrase and verify the writing, and ensure submission readiness, all in one place. Here’s how you can use Paperpal to develop the first draft of your methods section.  

• Generate an outline: Input some details about your research to instantly generate an outline for your methods section 
• Develop the section: Use the outline and suggested sentence templates to expand your ideas and develop the first draft.  
• P araph ras e and trim : Get clear, concise academic text with paraphrasing that conveys your work effectively and word reduction to fix redundancies. 
• Choose the right words: Enhance text by choosing contextual synonyms based on how the words have been used in previously published work.  
• Check and verify text : Make sure the generated text showcases your methods correctly, has all the right citations, and is original and authentic. .   

You can repeat this process to develop each section of your research manuscript, including the title, abstract and keywords. Ready to write your research papers faster, better, and without the stress? Sign up for Paperpal and start writing today!

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What are the key components of research methodology?

A1. A good research methodology has the following key components:

• Research design
• Data collection procedures
• Data analysis methods
• Ethical considerations

Q2. Why is ethical consideration important in research methodology?

A2. Ethical consideration is important in research methodology to ensure the readers of the reliability and validity of the study. Researchers must clearly mention the ethical norms and standards followed during the conduct of the research and also mention if the research has been cleared by any institutional board. The following 10 points are the important principles related to ethical considerations: 10

• Participants should not be subjected to harm.
• Respect for the dignity of participants should be prioritized.
• Full consent should be obtained from participants before the study.
• Participants’ privacy should be ensured.
• Confidentiality of the research data should be ensured.
• Anonymity of individuals and organizations participating in the research should be maintained.
• The aims and objectives of the research should not be exaggerated.
• Affiliations, sources of funding, and any possible conflicts of interest should be declared.
• Communication in relation to the research should be honest and transparent.
• Misleading information and biased representation of primary data findings should be avoided.

Q3. What is the difference between methodology and method?

A3. Research methodology is different from a research method, although both terms are often confused. Research methods are the tools used to gather data, while the research methodology provides a framework for how research is planned, conducted, and analyzed. The latter guides researchers in making decisions about the most appropriate methods for their research. Research methods refer to the specific techniques, procedures, and tools used by researchers to collect, analyze, and interpret data, for instance surveys, questionnaires, interviews, etc.

Research methodology is, thus, an integral part of a research study. It helps ensure that you stay on track to meet your research objectives and answer your research questions using the most appropriate data collection and analysis tools based on your research design.

Accelerate your research paper writing with Paperpal. Try for free now!

• Research methodologies. Pfeiffer Library website. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://library.tiffin.edu/researchmethodologies/whatareresearchmethodologies
• Types of research methodology. Eduvoice website. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://eduvoice.in/types-research-methodology/
• The basics of research methodology: A key to quality research. Voxco. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.voxco.com/blog/what-is-research-methodology/
• Sampling methods: Types with examples. QuestionPro website. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.questionpro.com/blog/types-of-sampling-for-social-research/
• What is qualitative research? Methods, types, approaches, examples. Researcher.Life blog. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://researcher.life/blog/article/what-is-qualitative-research-methods-types-examples/
• What is quantitative research? Definition, methods, types, and examples. Researcher.Life blog. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://researcher.life/blog/article/what-is-quantitative-research-types-and-examples/
• Data analysis in research: Types & methods. QuestionPro website. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.questionpro.com/blog/data-analysis-in-research/#Data_analysis_in_qualitative_research
• Factors to consider while choosing the right research methodology. PhD Monster website. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.phdmonster.com/factors-to-consider-while-choosing-the-right-research-methodology/
• What is research methodology? Research and writing guides. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://paperpile.com/g/what-is-research-methodology/
• Ethical considerations. Business research methodology website. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://research-methodology.net/research-methodology/ethical-considerations/

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• Dangling Modifiers and How to Avoid Them in Your Writing 
• Webinar: How to Use Generative AI Tools Ethically in Your Academic Writing
• Research Outlines: How to Write An Introduction Section in Minutes with Paperpal Copilot
• How to Paraphrase Research Papers Effectively

Language and Grammar Rules for Academic Writing

Climatic vs. climactic: difference and examples, you may also like, how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples , what is academic writing: tips for students, what is hedging in academic writing  , how to use ai to enhance your college..., how to use paperpal to generate emails &....

• How it works

Published by Nicolas at March 21st, 2024 , Revised On March 12, 2024

The Ultimate Guide To Research Methodology

Research methodology is a crucial aspect of any investigative process, serving as the blueprint for the entire research journey. If you are stuck in the methodology section of your research paper , then this blog will guide you on what is a research methodology, its types and how to successfully conduct one. 

Table of Contents

What Is Research Methodology?

Research methodology can be defined as the systematic framework that guides researchers in designing, conducting, and analyzing their investigations. It encompasses a structured set of processes, techniques, and tools employed to gather and interpret data, ensuring the reliability and validity of the research findings. 

Research methodology is not confined to a singular approach; rather, it encapsulates a diverse range of methods tailored to the specific requirements of the research objectives.

Here is why Research methodology is important in academic and professional settings.

Facilitating Rigorous Inquiry

Research methodology forms the backbone of rigorous inquiry. It provides a structured approach that aids researchers in formulating precise thesis statements , selecting appropriate methodologies, and executing systematic investigations. This, in turn, enhances the quality and credibility of the research outcomes.

Ensuring Reproducibility And Reliability

In both academic and professional contexts, the ability to reproduce research outcomes is paramount. A well-defined research methodology establishes clear procedures, making it possible for others to replicate the study. This not only validates the findings but also contributes to the cumulative nature of knowledge.

Guiding Decision-Making Processes

In professional settings, decisions often hinge on reliable data and insights. Research methodology equips professionals with the tools to gather pertinent information, analyze it rigorously, and derive meaningful conclusions.

This informed decision-making is instrumental in achieving organizational goals and staying ahead in competitive environments.

Contributing To Academic Excellence

For academic researchers, adherence to robust research methodology is a hallmark of excellence. Institutions value research that adheres to high standards of methodology, fostering a culture of academic rigour and intellectual integrity. Furthermore, it prepares students with critical skills applicable beyond academia.

Enhancing Problem-Solving Abilities

Research methodology instills a problem-solving mindset by encouraging researchers to approach challenges systematically. It equips individuals with the skills to dissect complex issues, formulate hypotheses , and devise effective strategies for investigation.

Understanding Research Methodology

In the pursuit of knowledge and discovery, understanding the fundamentals of research methodology is paramount. 

Basics Of Research

Research, in its essence, is a systematic and organized process of inquiry aimed at expanding our understanding of a particular subject or phenomenon. It involves the exploration of existing knowledge, the formulation of hypotheses, and the collection and analysis of data to draw meaningful conclusions. 

Research is a dynamic and iterative process that contributes to the continuous evolution of knowledge in various disciplines.

Types of Research

Research takes on various forms, each tailored to the nature of the inquiry. Broadly classified, research can be categorized into two main types:

• Quantitative Research: This type involves the collection and analysis of numerical data to identify patterns, relationships, and statistical significance. It is particularly useful for testing hypotheses and making predictions.
• Qualitative Research: Qualitative research focuses on understanding the depth and details of a phenomenon through non-numerical data. It often involves methods such as interviews, focus groups, and content analysis, providing rich insights into complex issues.

Components Of Research Methodology

To conduct effective research, one must go through the different components of research methodology. These components form the scaffolding that supports the entire research process, ensuring its coherence and validity.

Research Design

Research design serves as the blueprint for the entire research project. It outlines the overall structure and strategy for conducting the study. The three primary types of research design are:

• Exploratory Research: Aimed at gaining insights and familiarity with the topic, often used in the early stages of research.
• Descriptive Research: Involves portraying an accurate profile of a situation or phenomenon, answering the ‘what,’ ‘who,’ ‘where,’ and ‘when’ questions.
• Explanatory Research: Seeks to identify the causes and effects of a phenomenon, explaining the ‘why’ and ‘how.’

Data Collection Methods

Choosing the right data collection methods is crucial for obtaining reliable and relevant information. Common methods include:

• Surveys and Questionnaires: Employed to gather information from a large number of respondents through standardized questions.
• Interviews: In-depth conversations with participants, offering qualitative insights.
• Observation: Systematic watching and recording of behaviour, events, or processes in their natural setting.

Data Analysis Techniques

Once data is collected, analysis becomes imperative to derive meaningful conclusions. Different methodologies exist for quantitative and qualitative data:

• Quantitative Data Analysis: Involves statistical techniques such as descriptive statistics, inferential statistics, and regression analysis to interpret numerical data.
• Qualitative Data Analysis: Methods like content analysis, thematic analysis, and grounded theory are employed to extract patterns, themes, and meanings from non-numerical data.

The research paper we write have:

• Precision and Clarity
• Zero Plagiarism
• High-level Encryption
• Authentic Sources

Choosing a Research Method

Selecting an appropriate research method is a critical decision in the research process. It determines the approach, tools, and techniques that will be used to answer the research questions. 

Quantitative Research Methods

Quantitative research involves the collection and analysis of numerical data, providing a structured and objective approach to understanding and explaining phenomena.

Experimental Research

Experimental research involves manipulating variables to observe the effect on another variable under controlled conditions. It aims to establish cause-and-effect relationships.

Key Characteristics:

• Controlled Environment: Experiments are conducted in a controlled setting to minimize external influences.
• Random Assignment: Participants are randomly assigned to different experimental conditions.
• Quantitative Data: Data collected is numerical, allowing for statistical analysis.

Applications: Commonly used in scientific studies and psychology to test hypotheses and identify causal relationships.

Survey Research

Survey research gathers information from a sample of individuals through standardized questionnaires or interviews. It aims to collect data on opinions, attitudes, and behaviours.

• Structured Instruments: Surveys use structured instruments, such as questionnaires, to collect data.
• Large Sample Size: Surveys often target a large and diverse group of participants.
• Quantitative Data Analysis: Responses are quantified for statistical analysis.

Applications: Widely employed in social sciences, marketing, and public opinion research to understand trends and preferences.

Descriptive Research

Descriptive research seeks to portray an accurate profile of a situation or phenomenon. It focuses on answering the ‘what,’ ‘who,’ ‘where,’ and ‘when’ questions.

• Observation and Data Collection: This involves observing and documenting without manipulating variables.
• Objective Description: Aim to provide an unbiased and factual account of the subject.
• Quantitative or Qualitative Data: T his can include both types of data, depending on the research focus.

Applications: Useful in situations where researchers want to understand and describe a phenomenon without altering it, common in social sciences and education.

Qualitative Research Methods

Qualitative research emphasizes exploring and understanding the depth and complexity of phenomena through non-numerical data.

A case study is an in-depth exploration of a particular person, group, event, or situation. It involves detailed, context-rich analysis.

• Rich Data Collection: Uses various data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents.
• Contextual Understanding: Aims to understand the context and unique characteristics of the case.
• Holistic Approach: Examines the case in its entirety.

Applications: Common in social sciences, psychology, and business to investigate complex and specific instances.

Ethnography

Ethnography involves immersing the researcher in the culture or community being studied to gain a deep understanding of their behaviours, beliefs, and practices.

• Participant Observation: Researchers actively participate in the community or setting.
• Holistic Perspective: Focuses on the interconnectedness of cultural elements.
• Qualitative Data: In-depth narratives and descriptions are central to ethnographic studies.

Applications: Widely used in anthropology, sociology, and cultural studies to explore and document cultural practices.

Grounded Theory

Grounded theory aims to develop theories grounded in the data itself. It involves systematic data collection and analysis to construct theories from the ground up.

• Constant Comparison: Data is continually compared and analyzed during the research process.
• Inductive Reasoning: Theories emerge from the data rather than being imposed on it.
• Iterative Process: The research design evolves as the study progresses.

Applications: Commonly applied in sociology, nursing, and management studies to generate theories from empirical data.

Research design is the structural framework that outlines the systematic process and plan for conducting a study. It serves as the blueprint, guiding researchers on how to collect, analyze, and interpret data.

Exploratory, Descriptive, And Explanatory Designs

Exploratory design.

Exploratory research design is employed when a researcher aims to explore a relatively unknown subject or gain insights into a complex phenomenon.

• Flexibility: Allows for flexibility in data collection and analysis.
• Open-Ended Questions: Uses open-ended questions to gather a broad range of information.
• Preliminary Nature: Often used in the initial stages of research to formulate hypotheses.

Applications: Valuable in the early stages of investigation, especially when the researcher seeks a deeper understanding of a subject before formalizing research questions.

Descriptive Design

Descriptive research design focuses on portraying an accurate profile of a situation, group, or phenomenon.

• Structured Data Collection: Involves systematic and structured data collection methods.
• Objective Presentation: Aims to provide an unbiased and factual account of the subject.
• Quantitative or Qualitative Data: Can incorporate both types of data, depending on the research objectives.

Applications: Widely used in social sciences, marketing, and educational research to provide detailed and objective descriptions.

Explanatory Design

Explanatory research design aims to identify the causes and effects of a phenomenon, explaining the ‘why’ and ‘how’ behind observed relationships.

• Causal Relationships: Seeks to establish causal relationships between variables.
• Controlled Variables : Often involves controlling certain variables to isolate causal factors.
• Quantitative Analysis: Primarily relies on quantitative data analysis techniques.

Applications: Commonly employed in scientific studies and social sciences to delve into the underlying reasons behind observed patterns.

Cross-Sectional Vs. Longitudinal Designs

Cross-sectional design.

Cross-sectional designs collect data from participants at a single point in time.

• Snapshot View: Provides a snapshot of a population at a specific moment.
• Efficiency: More efficient in terms of time and resources.
• Limited Temporal Insights: Offers limited insights into changes over time.

Applications: Suitable for studying characteristics or behaviours that are stable or not expected to change rapidly.

Longitudinal Design

Longitudinal designs involve the collection of data from the same participants over an extended period.

• Temporal Sequence: Allows for the examination of changes over time.
• Causality Assessment: Facilitates the assessment of cause-and-effect relationships.
• Resource-Intensive: Requires more time and resources compared to cross-sectional designs.

Applications: Ideal for studying developmental processes, trends, or the impact of interventions over time.

Experimental Vs Non-experimental Designs

Experimental design.

Experimental designs involve manipulating variables under controlled conditions to observe the effect on another variable.

• Causality Inference: Enables the inference of cause-and-effect relationships.
• Quantitative Data: Primarily involves the collection and analysis of numerical data.

Applications: Commonly used in scientific studies, psychology, and medical research to establish causal relationships.

Non-Experimental Design

Non-experimental designs observe and describe phenomena without manipulating variables.

• Natural Settings: Data is often collected in natural settings without intervention.
• Descriptive or Correlational: Focuses on describing relationships or correlations between variables.
• Quantitative or Qualitative Data: This can involve either type of data, depending on the research approach.

Applications: Suitable for studying complex phenomena in real-world settings where manipulation may not be ethical or feasible.

Effective data collection is fundamental to the success of any research endeavour. 

Designing Effective Surveys

Objective Design:

• Clearly define the research objectives to guide the survey design.
• Craft questions that align with the study’s goals and avoid ambiguity.

Structured Format:

• Use a structured format with standardized questions for consistency.
• Include a mix of closed-ended and open-ended questions for detailed insights.

Pilot Testing:

• Conduct pilot tests to identify and rectify potential issues with survey design.
• Ensure clarity, relevance, and appropriateness of questions.

Sampling Strategy:

• Develop a robust sampling strategy to ensure a representative participant group.
• Consider random sampling or stratified sampling based on the research goals.

Conducting Interviews

Establishing Rapport:

• Build rapport with participants to create a comfortable and open environment.
• Clearly communicate the purpose of the interview and the value of participants’ input.

Open-Ended Questions:

• Frame open-ended questions to encourage detailed responses.
• Allow participants to express their thoughts and perspectives freely.

Active Listening:

• Practice active listening to understand areas and gather rich data.
• Avoid interrupting and maintain a non-judgmental stance during the interview.

Ethical Considerations:

• Obtain informed consent and assure participants of confidentiality.
• Be transparent about the study’s purpose and potential implications.

Observation

1. participant observation.

Immersive Participation:

• Actively immerse yourself in the setting or group being observed.
• Develop a deep understanding of behaviours, interactions, and context.

Field Notes:

• Maintain detailed and reflective field notes during observations.
• Document observed patterns, unexpected events, and participant reactions.

Ethical Awareness:

• Be conscious of ethical considerations, ensuring respect for participants.
• Balance the role of observer and participant to minimize bias.

2. Non-participant Observation

Objective Observation:

• Maintain a more detached and objective stance during non-participant observation.
• Focus on recording behaviours, events, and patterns without direct involvement.

Data Reliability:

• Enhance the reliability of data by reducing observer bias.
• Develop clear observation protocols and guidelines.

Contextual Understanding:

• Strive for a thorough understanding of the observed context.
• Consider combining non-participant observation with other methods for triangulation.

Archival Research

1. using existing data.

Identifying Relevant Archives:

• Locate and access archives relevant to the research topic.
• Collaborate with institutions or repositories holding valuable data.

Data Verification:

• Verify the accuracy and reliability of archived data.
• Cross-reference with other sources to ensure data integrity.

Ethical Use:

• Adhere to ethical guidelines when using existing data.
• Respect copyright and intellectual property rights.

2. Challenges and Considerations

Incomplete or Inaccurate Archives:

• Address the possibility of incomplete or inaccurate archival records.
• Acknowledge limitations and uncertainties in the data.

Temporal Bias:

• Recognize potential temporal biases in archived data.
• Consider the historical context and changes that may impact interpretation.

Access Limitations:

• Address potential limitations in accessing certain archives.
• Seek alternative sources or collaborate with institutions to overcome barriers.

Common Challenges in Research Methodology

Conducting research is a complex and dynamic process, often accompanied by a myriad of challenges. Addressing these challenges is crucial to ensure the reliability and validity of research findings.

Sampling Issues

Sampling bias:.

• The presence of sampling bias can lead to an unrepresentative sample, affecting the generalizability of findings.
• Employ random sampling methods and ensure the inclusion of diverse participants to reduce bias.

Sample Size Determination:

• Determining an appropriate sample size is a delicate balance. Too small a sample may lack statistical power, while an excessively large sample may strain resources.
• Conduct a power analysis to determine the optimal sample size based on the research objectives and expected effect size.

Data Quality And Validity

Measurement error:.

• Inaccuracies in measurement tools or data collection methods can introduce measurement errors, impacting the validity of results.
• Pilot test instruments, calibrate equipment, and use standardized measures to enhance the reliability of data.

Construct Validity:

• Ensuring that the chosen measures accurately capture the intended constructs is a persistent challenge.
• Use established measurement instruments and employ multiple measures to assess the same construct for triangulation.

Time And Resource Constraints

Timeline pressures:.

• Limited timeframes can compromise the depth and thoroughness of the research process.
• Develop a realistic timeline, prioritize tasks, and communicate expectations with stakeholders to manage time constraints effectively.

Resource Availability:

• Inadequate resources, whether financial or human, can impede the execution of research activities.
• Seek external funding, collaborate with other researchers, and explore alternative methods that require fewer resources.

Managing Bias in Research

Selection bias:.

• Selecting participants in a way that systematically skews the sample can introduce selection bias.
• Employ randomization techniques, use stratified sampling, and transparently report participant recruitment methods.

Confirmation Bias:

• Researchers may unintentionally favour information that confirms their preconceived beliefs or hypotheses.
• Adopt a systematic and open-minded approach, use blinded study designs, and engage in peer review to mitigate confirmation bias.

Tips On How To Write A Research Methodology

Conducting successful research relies not only on the application of sound methodologies but also on strategic planning and effective collaboration. Here are some tips to enhance the success of your research methodology:

Tip 1. Clear Research Objectives

Well-defined research objectives guide the entire research process. Clearly articulate the purpose of your study, outlining specific research questions or hypotheses.

Tip 2. Comprehensive Literature Review

A thorough literature review provides a foundation for understanding existing knowledge and identifying gaps. Invest time in reviewing relevant literature to inform your research design and methodology.

Tip 3. Detailed Research Plan

A detailed plan serves as a roadmap, ensuring all aspects of the research are systematically addressed. Develop a detailed research plan outlining timelines, milestones, and tasks.

Tip 4. Ethical Considerations

Ethical practices are fundamental to maintaining the integrity of research. Address ethical considerations early, obtain necessary approvals, and ensure participant rights are safeguarded.

Tip 5. Stay Updated On Methodologies

Research methodologies evolve, and staying updated is essential for employing the most effective techniques. Engage in continuous learning by attending workshops, conferences, and reading recent publications.

Tip 6. Adaptability In Methods

Unforeseen challenges may arise during research, necessitating adaptability in methods. Be flexible and willing to modify your approach when needed, ensuring the integrity of the study.

Tip 7. Iterative Approach

Research is often an iterative process, and refining methods based on ongoing findings enhance the study’s robustness. Regularly review and refine your research design and methods as the study progresses.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the research methodology.

Research methodology is the systematic process of planning, executing, and evaluating scientific investigation. It encompasses the techniques, tools, and procedures used to collect, analyze, and interpret data, ensuring the reliability and validity of research findings.

What are the methodologies in research?

Research methodologies include qualitative and quantitative approaches. Qualitative methods involve in-depth exploration of non-numerical data, while quantitative methods use statistical analysis to examine numerical data. Mixed methods combine both approaches for a comprehensive understanding of research questions.

How to write research methodology?

To write a research methodology, clearly outline the study’s design, data collection, and analysis procedures. Specify research tools, participants, and sampling methods. Justify choices and discuss limitations. Ensure clarity, coherence, and alignment with research objectives for a robust methodology section.

How to write the methodology section of a research paper?

In the methodology section of a research paper, describe the study’s design, data collection, and analysis methods. Detail procedures, tools, participants, and sampling. Justify choices, address ethical considerations, and explain how the methodology aligns with research objectives, ensuring clarity and rigour.

What is mixed research methodology?

Mixed research methodology combines both qualitative and quantitative research approaches within a single study. This approach aims to enhance the details and depth of research findings by providing a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem or question.

You May Also Like

The central idea of this excerpt revolves around the exploration of key themes, offering insights that illuminate the concepts within the text.

Common topics in Botany papers include taxonomy, plant physiology, ecology and biodiversity, plant pathology, and genetics.

Craft a compelling scholarship motivation letter by showcasing your passion, achievements, and future goals concisely and impactfully.

Ready to place an order?

USEFUL LINKS

Learning resources, company details.

• How It Works

Automated page speed optimizations for fast site performance

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is research methodology?

The basics of research methodology

Why do you need a research methodology, what needs to be included, why do you need to document your research method, what are the different types of research instruments, qualitative / quantitative / mixed research methodologies, how do you choose the best research methodology for you, frequently asked questions about research methodology, related articles.

When you’re working on your first piece of academic research, there are many different things to focus on, and it can be overwhelming to stay on top of everything. This is especially true of budding or inexperienced researchers.

If you’ve never put together a research proposal before or find yourself in a position where you need to explain your research methodology decisions, there are a few things you need to be aware of.

Once you understand the ins and outs, handling academic research in the future will be less intimidating. We break down the basics below:

A research methodology encompasses the way in which you intend to carry out your research. This includes how you plan to tackle things like collection methods, statistical analysis, participant observations, and more.

You can think of your research methodology as being a formula. One part will be how you plan on putting your research into practice, and another will be why you feel this is the best way to approach it. Your research methodology is ultimately a methodological and systematic plan to resolve your research problem.

In short, you are explaining how you will take your idea and turn it into a study, which in turn will produce valid and reliable results that are in accordance with the aims and objectives of your research. This is true whether your paper plans to make use of qualitative methods or quantitative methods.

The purpose of a research methodology is to explain the reasoning behind your approach to your research - you'll need to support your collection methods, methods of analysis, and other key points of your work.

Think of it like writing a plan or an outline for you what you intend to do.

When carrying out research, it can be easy to go off-track or depart from your standard methodology.

Tip: Having a methodology keeps you accountable and on track with your original aims and objectives, and gives you a suitable and sound plan to keep your project manageable, smooth, and effective.

With all that said, how do you write out your standard approach to a research methodology?

As a general plan, your methodology should include the following information:

• Your research method.  You need to state whether you plan to use quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis, or mixed-method research methods. This will often be determined by what you hope to achieve with your research.
• Explain your reasoning. Why are you taking this methodological approach? Why is this particular methodology the best way to answer your research problem and achieve your objectives?
• Explain your instruments.  This will mainly be about your collection methods. There are varying instruments to use such as interviews, physical surveys, questionnaires, for example. Your methodology will need to detail your reasoning in choosing a particular instrument for your research.
• What will you do with your results?  How are you going to analyze the data once you have gathered it?
• Advise your reader.  If there is anything in your research methodology that your reader might be unfamiliar with, you should explain it in more detail. For example, you should give any background information to your methods that might be relevant or provide your reasoning if you are conducting your research in a non-standard way.
• How will your sampling process go?  What will your sampling procedure be and why? For example, if you will collect data by carrying out semi-structured or unstructured interviews, how will you choose your interviewees and how will you conduct the interviews themselves?
• Any practical limitations?  You should discuss any limitations you foresee being an issue when you’re carrying out your research.

In any dissertation, thesis, or academic journal, you will always find a chapter dedicated to explaining the research methodology of the person who carried out the study, also referred to as the methodology section of the work.

A good research methodology will explain what you are going to do and why, while a poor methodology will lead to a messy or disorganized approach.

You should also be able to justify in this section your reasoning for why you intend to carry out your research in a particular way, especially if it might be a particularly unique method.

Having a sound methodology in place can also help you with the following:

• When another researcher at a later date wishes to try and replicate your research, they will need your explanations and guidelines.
• In the event that you receive any criticism or questioning on the research you carried out at a later point, you will be able to refer back to it and succinctly explain the how and why of your approach.
• It provides you with a plan to follow throughout your research. When you are drafting your methodology approach, you need to be sure that the method you are using is the right one for your goal. This will help you with both explaining and understanding your method.
• It affords you the opportunity to document from the outset what you intend to achieve with your research, from start to finish.

A research instrument is a tool you will use to help you collect, measure and analyze the data you use as part of your research.

The choice of research instrument will usually be yours to make as the researcher and will be whichever best suits your methodology.

There are many different research instruments you can use in collecting data for your research.

Generally, they can be grouped as follows:

• Interviews (either as a group or one-on-one). You can carry out interviews in many different ways. For example, your interview can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. The difference between them is how formal the set of questions is that is asked of the interviewee. In a group interview, you may choose to ask the interviewees to give you their opinions or perceptions on certain topics.
• Surveys (online or in-person). In survey research, you are posing questions in which you ask for a response from the person taking the survey. You may wish to have either free-answer questions such as essay-style questions, or you may wish to use closed questions such as multiple choice. You may even wish to make the survey a mixture of both.
• Focus Groups.  Similar to the group interview above, you may wish to ask a focus group to discuss a particular topic or opinion while you make a note of the answers given.
• Observations.  This is a good research instrument to use if you are looking into human behaviors. Different ways of researching this include studying the spontaneous behavior of participants in their everyday life, or something more structured. A structured observation is research conducted at a set time and place where researchers observe behavior as planned and agreed upon with participants.

These are the most common ways of carrying out research, but it is really dependent on your needs as a researcher and what approach you think is best to take.

It is also possible to combine a number of research instruments if this is necessary and appropriate in answering your research problem.

There are three different types of methodologies, and they are distinguished by whether they focus on words, numbers, or both.

➡️ Want to learn more about the differences between qualitative and quantitative research, and how to use both methods? Check out our guide for that!

If you've done your due diligence, you'll have an idea of which methodology approach is best suited to your research.

It’s likely that you will have carried out considerable reading and homework before you reach this point and you may have taken inspiration from other similar studies that have yielded good results.

Still, it is important to consider different options before setting your research in stone. Exploring different options available will help you to explain why the choice you ultimately make is preferable to other methods.

If proving your research problem requires you to gather large volumes of numerical data to test hypotheses, a quantitative research method is likely to provide you with the most usable results.

If instead you’re looking to try and learn more about people, and their perception of events, your methodology is more exploratory in nature and would therefore probably be better served using a qualitative research methodology.

It helps to always bring things back to the question: what do I want to achieve with my research?

Once you have conducted your research, you need to analyze it. Here are some helpful guides for qualitative data analysis:

➡️  How to do a content analysis

➡️  How to do a thematic analysis

➡️  How to do a rhetorical analysis

Research methodology refers to the techniques used to find and analyze information for a study, ensuring that the results are valid, reliable and that they address the research objective.

Data can typically be organized into four different categories or methods: observational, experimental, simulation, and derived.

Writing a methodology section is a process of introducing your methods and instruments, discussing your analysis, providing more background information, addressing your research limitations, and more.

Your research methodology section will need a clear research question and proposed research approach. You'll need to add a background, introduce your research question, write your methodology and add the works you cited during your data collecting phase.

The research methodology section of your study will indicate how valid your findings are and how well-informed your paper is. It also assists future researchers planning to use the same methodology, who want to cite your study or replicate it.

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing

How to Write Research Methodology

Last Updated: May 21, 2023 Approved

This article was co-authored by Alexander Ruiz, M.Ed. and by wikiHow staff writer, Jennifer Mueller, JD . Alexander Ruiz is an Educational Consultant and the Educational Director of Link Educational Institute, a tutoring business based in Claremont, California that provides customizable educational plans, subject and test prep tutoring, and college application consulting. With over a decade and a half of experience in the education industry, Alexander coaches students to increase their self-awareness and emotional intelligence while achieving skills and the goal of achieving skills and higher education. He holds a BA in Psychology from Florida International University and an MA in Education from Georgia Southern University. wikiHow marks an article as reader-approved once it receives enough positive feedback. In this case, several readers have written to tell us that this article was helpful to them, earning it our reader-approved status. This article has been viewed 521,311 times.

The research methodology section of any academic research paper gives you the opportunity to convince your readers that your research is useful and will contribute to your field of study. An effective research methodology is grounded in your overall approach – whether qualitative or quantitative – and adequately describes the methods you used. Justify why you chose those methods over others, then explain how those methods will provide answers to your research questions. [1] X Research source

Describing Your Methods

• In your restatement, include any underlying assumptions that you're making or conditions that you're taking for granted. These assumptions will also inform the research methods you've chosen.
• Generally, state the variables you'll test and the other conditions you're controlling or assuming are equal.

• If you want to research and document measurable social trends, or evaluate the impact of a particular policy on various variables, use a quantitative approach focused on data collection and statistical analysis.
• If you want to evaluate people's views or understanding of a particular issue, choose a more qualitative approach.
• You can also combine the two. For example, you might look primarily at a measurable social trend, but also interview people and get their opinions on how that trend is affecting their lives.

• For example, if you conducted a survey, you would describe the questions included in the survey, where and how the survey was conducted (such as in person, online, over the phone), how many surveys were distributed, and how long your respondents had to complete the survey.
• Include enough detail that your study can be replicated by others in your field, even if they may not get the same results you did. [4] X Research source

• Qualitative research methods typically require more detailed explanation than quantitative methods.
• Basic investigative procedures don't need to be explained in detail. Generally, you can assume that your readers have a general understanding of common research methods that social scientists use, such as surveys or focus groups.

• For example, suppose you conducted a survey and used a couple of other research papers to help construct the questions on your survey. You would mention those as contributing sources.

Justifying Your Choice of Methods

• Describe study participants specifically, and list any inclusion or exclusion criteria you used when forming your group of participants.
• Justify the size of your sample, if applicable, and describe how this affects whether your study can be generalized to larger populations. For example, if you conducted a survey of 30 percent of the student population of a university, you could potentially apply those results to the student body as a whole, but maybe not to students at other universities.

• Reading other research papers is a good way to identify potential problems that commonly arise with various methods. State whether you actually encountered any of these common problems during your research.

• If you encountered any problems as you collected data, explain clearly the steps you took to minimize the effect that problem would have on your results.

• In some cases, this may be as simple as stating that while there were numerous studies using one method, there weren't any using your method, which caused a gap in understanding of the issue.
• For example, there may be multiple papers providing quantitative analysis of a particular social trend. However, none of these papers looked closely at how this trend was affecting the lives of people.

Connecting Your Methods to Your Research Goals

• Depending on your research questions, you may be mixing quantitative and qualitative analysis – just as you could potentially use both approaches. For example, you might do a statistical analysis, and then interpret those statistics through a particular theoretical lens.

• For example, suppose you're researching the effect of college education on family farms in rural America. While you could do interviews of college-educated people who grew up on a family farm, that would not give you a picture of the overall effect. A quantitative approach and statistical analysis would give you a bigger picture.

• If in answering your research questions, your findings have raised other questions that may require further research, state these briefly.
• You can also include here any limitations to your methods, or questions that weren't answered through your research.

• Generalization is more typically used in quantitative research. If you have a well-designed sample, you can statistically apply your results to the larger population your sample belongs to.

Template to Write Research Methodology

Community Q&A

• Organize your methodology section chronologically, starting with how you prepared to conduct your research methods, how you gathered data, and how you analyzed that data. [13] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Write your research methodology section in past tense, unless you're submitting the methodology section before the research described has been carried out. [14] X Research source Thanks Helpful 2 Not Helpful 0
• Discuss your plans in detail with your advisor or supervisor before committing to a particular methodology. They can help identify possible flaws in your study. [15] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ http://expertjournals.com/how-to-write-a-research-methodology-for-your-academic-article/
• ↑ http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/methodology
• ↑ https://www.skillsyouneed.com/learn/dissertation-methodology.html
• ↑ https://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/4245/05Chap%204_Research%20methodology%20and%20design.pdf
• ↑ https://elc.polyu.edu.hk/FYP/html/method.htm

About This Article

To write a research methodology, start with a section that outlines the problems or questions you'll be studying, including your hypotheses or whatever it is you're setting out to prove. Then, briefly explain why you chose to use either a qualitative or quantitative approach for your study. Next, go over when and where you conducted your research and what parameters you used to ensure you were objective. Finally, cite any sources you used to decide on the methodology for your research. To learn how to justify your choice of methods in your research methodology, scroll down! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prof. Dr. Ahmed Askar

Apr 18, 2020

Did this article help you?

M. Mahmood Shah Khan

Mar 17, 2020

Shimola Makondo

Jul 20, 2019

Zain Sharif Mohammed Alnadhery

Jan 7, 2019

Lundi Dukashe

Feb 17, 2020

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

How To Write The Methodology Chapter

The what, why & how explained simply (with examples).

By: Jenna Crossley (PhD) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | September 2021 (Updated April 2023)

So, you’ve pinned down your research topic and undertaken a review of the literature – now it’s time to write up the methodology section of your dissertation, thesis or research paper . But what exactly is the methodology chapter all about – and how do you go about writing one? In this post, we’ll unpack the topic, step by step .

Overview: The Methodology Chapter

• The purpose  of the methodology chapter
• Why you need to craft this chapter (really) well
• How to write and structure the chapter
• Methodology chapter example
• Essential takeaways

What (exactly) is the methodology chapter?

The methodology chapter is where you outline the philosophical underpinnings of your research and outline the specific methodological choices you’ve made. The point of the methodology chapter is to tell the reader exactly how you designed your study and, just as importantly, why you did it this way.

Importantly, this chapter should comprehensively describe and justify all the methodological choices you made in your study. For example, the approach you took to your research (i.e., qualitative, quantitative or mixed), who  you collected data from (i.e., your sampling strategy), how you collected your data and, of course, how you analysed it. If that sounds a little intimidating, don’t worry – we’ll explain all these methodological choices in this post .

Why is the methodology chapter important?

The methodology chapter plays two important roles in your dissertation or thesis:

Firstly, it demonstrates your understanding of research theory, which is what earns you marks. A flawed research design or methodology would mean flawed results. So, this chapter is vital as it allows you to show the marker that you know what you’re doing and that your results are credible .

Secondly, the methodology chapter is what helps to make your study replicable. In other words, it allows other researchers to undertake your study using the same methodological approach, and compare their findings to yours. This is very important within academic research, as each study builds on previous studies.

The methodology chapter is also important in that it allows you to identify and discuss any methodological issues or problems you encountered (i.e., research limitations ), and to explain how you mitigated the impacts of these. Every research project has its limitations , so it’s important to acknowledge these openly and highlight your study’s value despite its limitations . Doing so demonstrates your understanding of research design, which will earn you marks. We’ll discuss limitations in a bit more detail later in this post, so stay tuned!

Need a helping hand?

How to write up the methodology chapter

First off, it’s worth noting that the exact structure and contents of the methodology chapter will vary depending on the field of research (e.g., humanities, chemistry or engineering) as well as the university . So, be sure to always check the guidelines provided by your institution for clarity and, if possible, review past dissertations from your university. Here we’re going to discuss a generic structure for a methodology chapter typically found in the sciences.

Before you start writing, it’s always a good idea to draw up a rough outline to guide your writing. Don’t just start writing without knowing what you’ll discuss where. If you do, you’ll likely end up with a disjointed, ill-flowing narrative . You’ll then waste a lot of time rewriting in an attempt to try to stitch all the pieces together. Do yourself a favour and start with the end in mind .

Section 1 – Introduction

As with all chapters in your dissertation or thesis, the methodology chapter should have a brief introduction. In this section, you should remind your readers what the focus of your study is, especially the research aims . As we’ve discussed many times on the blog, your methodology needs to align with your research aims, objectives and research questions. Therefore, it’s useful to frontload this component to remind the reader (and yourself!) what you’re trying to achieve.

In this section, you can also briefly mention how you’ll structure the chapter. This will help orient the reader and provide a bit of a roadmap so that they know what to expect. You don’t need a lot of detail here – just a brief outline will do.

Section 2 – The Methodology

The next section of your chapter is where you’ll present the actual methodology. In this section, you need to detail and justify the key methodological choices you’ve made in a logical, intuitive fashion. Importantly, this is the heart of your methodology chapter, so you need to get specific – don’t hold back on the details here. This is not one of those “less is more” situations.

Let’s take a look at the most common components you’ll likely need to cover. 

Methodological Choice #1 – Research Philosophy

Research philosophy refers to the underlying beliefs (i.e., the worldview) regarding how data about a phenomenon should be gathered , analysed and used . The research philosophy will serve as the core of your study and underpin all of the other research design choices, so it’s critically important that you understand which philosophy you’ll adopt and why you made that choice. If you’re not clear on this, take the time to get clarity before you make any further methodological choices.

While several research philosophies exist, two commonly adopted ones are positivism and interpretivism . These two sit roughly on opposite sides of the research philosophy spectrum.

Positivism states that the researcher can observe reality objectively and that there is only one reality, which exists independently of the observer. As a consequence, it is quite commonly the underlying research philosophy in quantitative studies and is oftentimes the assumed philosophy in the physical sciences.

Contrasted with this, interpretivism , which is often the underlying research philosophy in qualitative studies, assumes that the researcher performs a role in observing the world around them and that reality is unique to each observer . In other words, reality is observed subjectively .

These are just two philosophies (there are many more), but they demonstrate significantly different approaches to research and have a significant impact on all the methodological choices. Therefore, it’s vital that you clearly outline and justify your research philosophy at the beginning of your methodology chapter, as it sets the scene for everything that follows.

Methodological Choice #2 – Research Type

The next thing you would typically discuss in your methodology section is the research type. The starting point for this is to indicate whether the research you conducted is inductive or deductive .

Inductive research takes a bottom-up approach , where the researcher begins with specific observations or data and then draws general conclusions or theories from those observations. Therefore these studies tend to be exploratory in terms of approach.

Conversely , d eductive research takes a top-down approach , where the researcher starts with a theory or hypothesis and then tests it using specific observations or data. Therefore these studies tend to be confirmatory in approach.

Related to this, you’ll need to indicate whether your study adopts a qualitative, quantitative or mixed  approach. As we’ve mentioned, there’s a strong link between this choice and your research philosophy, so make sure that your choices are tightly aligned . When you write this section up, remember to clearly justify your choices, as they form the foundation of your study.

Methodological Choice #3 – Research Strategy

Next, you’ll need to discuss your research strategy (also referred to as a research design ). This methodological choice refers to the broader strategy in terms of how you’ll conduct your research, based on the aims of your study.

Several research strategies exist, including experimental , case studies , ethnography , grounded theory, action research , and phenomenology . Let’s take a look at two of these, experimental and ethnographic, to see how they contrast.

Experimental research makes use of the scientific method , where one group is the control group (in which no variables are manipulated ) and another is the experimental group (in which a specific variable is manipulated). This type of research is undertaken under strict conditions in a controlled, artificial environment (e.g., a laboratory). By having firm control over the environment, experimental research typically allows the researcher to establish causation between variables. Therefore, it can be a good choice if you have research aims that involve identifying causal relationships.

Ethnographic research , on the other hand, involves observing and capturing the experiences and perceptions of participants in their natural environment (for example, at home or in the office). In other words, in an uncontrolled environment.  Naturally, this means that this research strategy would be far less suitable if your research aims involve identifying causation, but it would be very valuable if you’re looking to explore and examine a group culture, for example.

As you can see, the right research strategy will depend largely on your research aims and research questions – in other words, what you’re trying to figure out. Therefore, as with every other methodological choice, it’s essential to justify why you chose the research strategy you did.

Methodological Choice #4 – Time Horizon

The next thing you’ll need to detail in your methodology chapter is the time horizon. There are two options here: cross-sectional and longitudinal . In other words, whether the data for your study were all collected at one point in time (cross-sectional) or at multiple points in time (longitudinal).

The choice you make here depends again on your research aims, objectives and research questions. If, for example, you aim to assess how a specific group of people’s perspectives regarding a topic change over time , you’d likely adopt a longitudinal time horizon.

Another important factor to consider is simply whether you have the time necessary to adopt a longitudinal approach (which could involve collecting data over multiple months or even years). Oftentimes, the time pressures of your degree program will force your hand into adopting a cross-sectional time horizon, so keep this in mind.

Methodological Choice #5 – Sampling Strategy

Next, you’ll need to discuss your sampling strategy . There are two main categories of sampling, probability and non-probability sampling.

Probability sampling involves a random (and therefore representative) selection of participants from a population, whereas non-probability sampling entails selecting participants in a non-random  (and therefore non-representative) manner. For example, selecting participants based on ease of access (this is called a convenience sample).

The right sampling approach depends largely on what you’re trying to achieve in your study. Specifically, whether you trying to develop findings that are generalisable to a population or not. Practicalities and resource constraints also play a large role here, as it can oftentimes be challenging to gain access to a truly random sample. In the video below, we explore some of the most common sampling strategies.

Methodological Choice #6 – Data Collection Method

Next up, you’ll need to explain how you’ll go about collecting the necessary data for your study. Your data collection method (or methods) will depend on the type of data that you plan to collect – in other words, qualitative or quantitative data.

Typically, quantitative research relies on surveys , data generated by lab equipment, analytics software or existing datasets. Qualitative research, on the other hand, often makes use of collection methods such as interviews , focus groups , participant observations, and ethnography.

So, as you can see, there is a tight link between this section and the design choices you outlined in earlier sections. Strong alignment between these sections, as well as your research aims and questions is therefore very important.

Methodological Choice #7 – Data Analysis Methods/Techniques

The final major methodological choice that you need to address is that of analysis techniques . In other words, how you’ll go about analysing your date once you’ve collected it. Here it’s important to be very specific about your analysis methods and/or techniques – don’t leave any room for interpretation. Also, as with all choices in this chapter, you need to justify each choice you make.

What exactly you discuss here will depend largely on the type of study you’re conducting (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods). For qualitative studies, common analysis methods include content analysis , thematic analysis and discourse analysis . In the video below, we explain each of these in plain language.

For quantitative studies, you’ll almost always make use of descriptive statistics , and in many cases, you’ll also use inferential statistical techniques (e.g., correlation and regression analysis). In the video below, we unpack some of the core concepts involved in descriptive and inferential statistics.

In this section of your methodology chapter, it’s also important to discuss how you prepared your data for analysis, and what software you used (if any). For example, quantitative data will often require some initial preparation such as removing duplicates or incomplete responses . Similarly, qualitative data will often require transcription and perhaps even translation. As always, remember to state both what you did and why you did it.

Section 3 – The Methodological Limitations

With the key methodological choices outlined and justified, the next step is to discuss the limitations of your design. No research methodology is perfect – there will always be trade-offs between the “ideal” methodology and what’s practical and viable, given your constraints. Therefore, this section of your methodology chapter is where you’ll discuss the trade-offs you had to make, and why these were justified given the context.

Methodological limitations can vary greatly from study to study, ranging from common issues such as time and budget constraints to issues of sample or selection bias . For example, you may find that you didn’t manage to draw in enough respondents to achieve the desired sample size (and therefore, statistically significant results), or your sample may be skewed heavily towards a certain demographic, thereby negatively impacting representativeness .

In this section, it’s important to be critical of the shortcomings of your study. There’s no use trying to hide them (your marker will be aware of them regardless). By being critical, you’ll demonstrate to your marker that you have a strong understanding of research theory, so don’t be shy here. At the same time, don’t beat your study to death . State the limitations, why these were justified, how you mitigated their impacts to the best degree possible, and how your study still provides value despite these limitations .

Section 4 – Concluding Summary

Finally, it’s time to wrap up the methodology chapter with a brief concluding summary. In this section, you’ll want to concisely summarise what you’ve presented in the chapter. Here, it can be a good idea to use a figure to summarise the key decisions, especially if your university recommends using a specific model (for example, Saunders’ Research Onion ).

Importantly, this section needs to be brief – a paragraph or two maximum (it’s a summary, after all). Also, make sure that when you write up your concluding summary, you include only what you’ve already discussed in your chapter; don’t add any new information.

Methodology Chapter Example

In the video below, we walk you through an example of a high-quality research methodology chapter from a dissertation. We also unpack our free methodology chapter template so that you can see how best to structure your chapter.

Wrapping Up

And there you have it – the methodology chapter in a nutshell. As we’ve mentioned, the exact contents and structure of this chapter can vary between universities , so be sure to check in with your institution before you start writing. If possible, try to find dissertations or theses from former students of your specific degree program – this will give you a strong indication of the expectations and norms when it comes to the methodology chapter (and all the other chapters!).

Also, remember the golden rule of the methodology chapter – justify every choice ! Make sure that you clearly explain the “why” for every “what”, and reference credible methodology textbooks or academic sources to back up your justifications.

If you need a helping hand with your research methodology (or any other component of your research), be sure to check out our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through every step of the research journey. Until next time, good luck!

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

51 Comments

highly appreciated.

This was very helpful!

This was helpful

Thanks ,it is a very useful idea.

Thanks ,it is very useful idea.

Thank you so much, this information is very useful.

Thank you very much. I must say the information presented was succinct, coherent and invaluable. It is well put together and easy to comprehend. I have a great guide to create the research methodology for my dissertation.

Highly clear and useful.

I understand a bit on the explanation above. I want to have some coach but I’m still student and don’t have any budget to hire one. A lot of question I want to ask.

Thank you so much. This concluded my day plan. Thank you so much.

Thanks it was helpful

Great information. It would be great though if you could show us practical examples.

Thanks so much for this information. God bless and be with you

Thank you so so much. Indeed it was helpful

This is EXCELLENT!

I was totally confused by other explanations. Thank you so much!.

justdoing my research now , thanks for the guidance.

Thank uuuu! These contents are really valued for me!

This is powerful …I really like it

Highly useful and clear, thank you so much.

Highly appreciated. Good guide

That was helpful. Thanks

This is very useful.Thank you

Very helpful information. Thank you

This is exactly what I was looking for. The explanation is so detailed and easy to comprehend. Well done and thank you.

Great job. You just summarised everything in the easiest and most comprehensible way possible. Thanks a lot.

Thank you very much for the ideas you have given this will really help me a lot. Thank you and God Bless.

Such great effort …….very grateful thank you

Please accept my sincere gratitude. I have to say that the information that was delivered was congruent, concise, and quite helpful. It is clear and straightforward, making it simple to understand. I am in possession of an excellent manual that will assist me in developing the research methods for my dissertation.

Thank you for your great explanation. It really helped me construct my methodology paper.

thank you for simplifieng the methodoly, It was realy helpful

Very helpful!

Thank you for your great explanation.

The explanation I have been looking for. So clear Thank you

Thank you very much .this was more enlightening.

helped me create the in depth and thorough methodology for my dissertation

Thank you for the great explaination.please construct one methodology for me

I appreciate you for the explanation of methodology. Please construct one methodology on the topic: The effects influencing students dropout among schools for my thesis

This helped me complete my methods section of my dissertation with ease. I have managed to write a thorough and concise methodology!

its so good in deed

wow …what an easy to follow presentation. very invaluable content shared. utmost important.

Peace be upon you, I am Dr. Ahmed Khedr, a former part-time professor at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt. I am currently teaching research methods, and I have been dealing with your esteemed site for several years, and I found that despite my long experience with research methods sites, it is one of the smoothest sites for evaluating the material for students, For this reason, I relied on it a lot in teaching and translated most of what was written into Arabic and published it on my own page on Facebook. Thank you all… Everything I posted on my page is provided with the names of the writers of Grad coach, the title of the article, and the site. My best regards.

A remarkably simple and useful guide, thank you kindly.

I real appriciate your short and remarkable chapter summary

Bravo! Very helpful guide.

Only true experts could provide such helpful, fantastic, and inspiring knowledge about Methodology. Thank you very much! God be with you and us all!

highly appreciate your effort.

This is a very well thought out post. Very informative and a great read.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR SHARING YOUR NICE IDEA

I love you Emma, you are simply amazing with clear explanations with complete information. GradCoach really helped me to do my assignment here in Auckland. Mostly, Emma make it so simple and enjoyable

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Organizing Academic Research Papers: 6. The Methodology

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• How to Manage Group Projects
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Acknowledgements

The methods section of a research paper provides the information by which a study’s validity is judged. The method section answers two main questions: 1) How was the data collected or generated? 2) How was it analyzed? The writing should be direct and precise and written in the past tense.

Importance of a Good Methodology Section

You must explain how you obtained and analyzed your results for the following reasons:

• Readers need to know how the data was obtained because the method you choose affects the results and, by extension, how you likely interpreted those results.
• Methodology is crucial for any branch of scholarship because an unreliable method produces unreliable results and it misappropriates interpretations of findings .
• In most cases, there are a variety of different methods you can choose to investigate a research problem. Your methodology section of your paper should make clear the reasons why you chose a particular method or procedure .
• The reader wants to know that the data was collected or generated in a way that is consistent with accepted practice in the field of study. For example, if you are using a questionnaire, readers need to know that it offered your respondents a reasonable range of answers to choose from.
• The research method must be appropriate to the objectives of the study . For example, be sure you have a large enough sample size to be able to generalize and make recommendations based upon the findings.
• The methodology should discuss the problems that were anticipated and the steps you took to prevent them from occurring . For any problems that did arise, you must describe the ways in which their impact was minimized or why these problems do not affect the findings in any way that impacts your interpretation of the data.
• Often in social science research, it is useful for other researchers to adapt or replicate your methodology. Therefore, it is important to always provide sufficient information to allow others to use or replicate the study . This information is particularly important when a new method had been developed or an innovative use of an existing method has been utilized.

Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article . Psychology Writing Center. University of Washington; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I. Groups of Research Methods

There are two main groups of research methods in the social sciences:

• The empirical-analytical group approaches the study of social sciences in a similar manner that researchers study the natural sciences. This type of research focuses on objective knowledge, research questions that can be answered yes or no, and operational definitions of variables to be measured. The empirical-analytical group employs deductive reasoning that uses existing theory as a foundation for hypotheses that need to be tested. This approach is focused on explanation .
• The interpretative group is focused on understanding phenomenon in a comprehensive, holistic way . This research method allows you to recognize your connection to the subject under study. Because the interpretative group focuses more on subjective knowledge, it requires careful interpretation of variables.

II. Content

An effectively written methodology section should:

• Introduce the overall methodological approach for investigating your research problem . Is your study qualitative or quantitative or a combination of both (mixed method)? Are you going to take a special approach, such as action research, or a more neutral stance?
• Indicate how the approach fits the overall research design . Your methods should have a clear connection with your research problem. In other words, make sure that your methods will actually address the problem. One of the most common deficiencies found in research papers is that the proposed methodology is unsuited to achieving the stated objective of your paper.
• Describe the specific methods of data collection you are going to use , such as, surveys, interviews, questionnaires, observation, archival research. If you are analyzing existing data, such as a data set or archival documents, describe how it was originally created or gathered and by whom.
• Explain how you intend to analyze your results . Will you use statistical analysis? Will you use specific theoretical perspectives to help you analyze a text or explain observed behaviors?
• Provide background and rationale for methodologies that are unfamiliar for your readers . Very often in the social sciences, research problems and the methods for investigating them require more explanation/rationale than widely accepted rules governing the natural and physical sciences. Be clear and concise in your explanation.
• Provide a rationale for subject selection and sampling procedure . For instance, if you propose to conduct interviews, how do you intend to select the sample population? If you are analyzing texts, which texts have you chosen, and why? If you are using statistics, why is this set of statisics being used? If other data sources exist, explain why the data you chose is most appropriate.
• Address potential limitations . Are there any practical limitations that could affect your data collection? How will you attempt to control for potential confounding variables and errors? If your methodology may lead to problems you can anticipate, state this openly and show why pursuing this methodology outweighs the risk of these problems cropping up.

NOTE :  Once you have written all of the elements of the methods section, subsequent revisions should focus on how to present those elements as clearly and as logically as possibly. The description of how you prepared to study the research problem, how you gathered the data, and the protocol for analyzing the data should be organized chronologically. For clarity, when a large amount of detail must be presented, information should be presented in sub-sections according to topic.

III.  Problems to Avoid

Irrelevant Detail The methodology section of your paper should be thorough but to the point. Don’t provide any background information that doesn’t directly help the reader to understand why a particular method was chosen, how the data was gathered or obtained, and how it was analyzed. Unnecessary Explanation of Basic Procedures Remember that you are not writing a how-to guide about a particular method. You should make the assumption that readers possess a basic understanding of how to investigate the research problem on their own and, therefore, you do not have to go into great detail about specific methodological procedures. The focus should be on how you applied a method , not on the mechanics of doing a method. NOTE: An exception to this rule is if you select an unconventional approach to doing the method; if this is the case, be sure to explain why this approach was chosen and how it enhances the overall research process. Problem Blindness It is almost a given that you will encounter problems when collecting or generating your data. Do not ignore these problems or pretend they did not occur. Often, documenting how you overcame obstacles can form an interesting part of the methodology. It demonstrates to the reader that you can provide a cogent rationale for the decisions you made to minimize the impact of any problems that arose. Literature Review Just as the literature review section of your paper provides an overview of sources you have examined while researching a particular topic, the methodology section should cite any sources that informed your choice and application of a particular method [i.e., the choice of a survey should include any citations to the works you used to help construct the survey].

It’s More than Sources of Information! A description of a research study's method should not be confused with a description of the sources of information. Such a list of sources is useful in itself, especially if it is accompanied by an explanation about the selection and use of the sources. The description of the project's methodology complements a list of sources in that it sets forth the organization and interpretation of information emanating from those sources.

Azevedo, L.F. et al. How to Write a Scientific Paper: Writing the Methods Section. Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia 17 (2011): 232-238; Butin, Dan W. The Education Dissertation A Guide for Practitioner Scholars . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2010; Carter, Susan. Structuring Your Research Thesis . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008. Methods Section . The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Methods and Materials . The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College.

Writing Tip

Statistical Designs and Tests? Do Not Fear Them!

Don't avoid using a quantitative approach to analyzing your research problem just because you fear the idea of applying statistical designs and tests. A qualitative approach, such as conducting interviews or content analysis of archival texts, can yield exciting new insights about a research problem, but it should not be undertaken simply because you have a disdain for running a simple regression. A well designed quantitative research study can often be accomplished in very clear and direct ways, whereas, a similar study of a qualitative nature usually requires considerable time to analyze large volumes of data and a tremendous burden to create new paths for analysis where previously no path associated with your research problem had existed.

Another Writing Tip

Knowing the Relationship Between Theories and Methods

There can be multiple meaning associated with the term "theories" and the term "methods" in social sciences research. A helpful way to delineate between them is to understand "theories" as representing different ways of characterizing the social world when you research it and "methods" as representing different ways of generating and analyzing data about that social world. Framed in this way, all empirical social sciences research involves theories and methods, whether they are stated explicitly or not. However, while theories and methods are often related, it is important that, as a researcher, you deliberately separate them in order to avoid your theories playing a disproportionate role in shaping what outcomes your chosen methods produce.

Introspectively engage in an ongoing dialectic between theories and methods to help enable you to use the outcomes from your methods to interrogate and develop new theories, or ways of framing conceptually the research problem. This is how scholarship grows and branches out into new intellectual territory.

Reynolds, R. Larry. Ways of Knowing. Alternative Microeconomics. Part 1, Chapter 3. Boise State University; The Theory-Method Relationship . S-Cool Revision. United Kingdom.

• << Previous: What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Next: Qualitative Methods >>
• Last Updated: Jul 18, 2023 11:58 AM
• URL: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803
• QuickSearch
• Library Catalog
• Databases A-Z
• Publication Finder
• Course Reserves
• Citation Linker
• Digital Commons
• Our Website

Research Support

• Ask a Librarian
• Appointments
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Research Guides
• Databases by Subject
• Citation Help

Using the Library

• Reserve a Group Study Room
• Renew Books
• Honors Study Rooms
• Off-Campus Access
• Library Policies
• Library Technology

User Information

• Grad Students
• Online Students
• COVID-19 Updates
• Staff Directory
• News & Announcements
• Library Newsletter

My Accounts

• Interlibrary Loan
• Staff Site Login

FIND US ON  

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections
• How to Write Your Methods

Ensure understanding, reproducibility and replicability

What should you include in your methods section, and how much detail is appropriate?

Why Methods Matter

The methods section was once the most likely part of a paper to be unfairly abbreviated, overly summarized, or even relegated to hard-to-find sections of a publisher’s website. While some journals may responsibly include more detailed elements of methods in supplementary sections, the movement for increased reproducibility and rigor in science has reinstated the importance of the methods section. Methods are now viewed as a key element in establishing the credibility of the research being reported, alongside the open availability of data and results.

A clear methods section impacts editorial evaluation and readers’ understanding, and is also the backbone of transparency and replicability.

For example, the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology project set out in 2013 to replicate experiments from 50 high profile cancer papers, but revised their target to 18 papers once they understood how much methodological detail was not contained in the original papers.

What to include in your methods section

What you include in your methods sections depends on what field you are in and what experiments you are performing. However, the general principle in place at the majority of journals is summarized well by the guidelines at PLOS ONE : “The Materials and Methods section should provide enough detail to allow suitably skilled investigators to fully replicate your study. ” The emphases here are deliberate: the methods should enable readers to understand your paper, and replicate your study. However, there is no need to go into the level of detail that a lay-person would require—the focus is on the reader who is also trained in your field, with the suitable skills and knowledge to attempt a replication.

A constant principle of rigorous science

A methods section that enables other researchers to understand and replicate your results is a constant principle of rigorous, transparent, and Open Science. Aim to be thorough, even if a particular journal doesn’t require the same level of detail . Reproducibility is all of our responsibility. You cannot create any problems by exceeding a minimum standard of information. If a journal still has word-limits—either for the overall article or specific sections—and requires some methodological details to be in a supplemental section, that is OK as long as the extra details are searchable and findable .

Imagine replicating your own work, years in the future

As part of PLOS’ presentation on Reproducibility and Open Publishing (part of UCSF’s Reproducibility Series ) we recommend planning the level of detail in your methods section by imagining you are writing for your future self, replicating your own work. When you consider that you might be at a different institution, with different account logins, applications, resources, and access levels—you can help yourself imagine the level of specificity that you yourself would require to redo the exact experiment. Consider:

• Which details would you need to be reminded of? 
• Which cell line, or antibody, or software, or reagent did you use, and does it have a Research Resource ID (RRID) that you can cite?
• Which version of a questionnaire did you use in your survey? 
• Exactly which visual stimulus did you show participants, and is it publicly available? 
• What participants did you decide to exclude? 
• What process did you adjust, during your work? 

Tip: Be sure to capture any changes to your protocols

You yourself would want to know about any adjustments, if you ever replicate the work, so you can surmise that anyone else would want to as well. Even if a necessary adjustment you made was not ideal, transparency is the key to ensuring this is not regarded as an issue in the future. It is far better to transparently convey any non-optimal methods, or methodological constraints, than to conceal them, which could result in reproducibility or ethical issues downstream.

Visual aids for methods help when reading the whole paper

Consider whether a visual representation of your methods could be appropriate or aid understanding your process. A visual reference readers can easily return to, like a flow-diagram, decision-tree, or checklist, can help readers to better understand the complete article, not just the methods section.

Ethical Considerations

In addition to describing what you did, it is just as important to assure readers that you also followed all relevant ethical guidelines when conducting your research. While ethical standards and reporting guidelines are often presented in a separate section of a paper, ensure that your methods and protocols actually follow these guidelines. Read more about ethics .

Existing standards, checklists, guidelines, partners

While the level of detail contained in a methods section should be guided by the universal principles of rigorous science outlined above, various disciplines, fields, and projects have worked hard to design and develop consistent standards, guidelines, and tools to help with reporting all types of experiment. Below, you’ll find some of the key initiatives. Ensure you read the submission guidelines for the specific journal you are submitting to, in order to discover any further journal- or field-specific policies to follow, or initiatives/tools to utilize.

Tip: Keep your paper moving forward by providing the proper paperwork up front

Be sure to check the journal guidelines and provide the necessary documents with your manuscript submission. Collecting the necessary documentation can greatly slow the first round of peer review, or cause delays when you submit your revision.

Randomized Controlled Trials – CONSORT The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) project covers various initiatives intended to prevent the problems of  inadequate reporting of randomized controlled trials. The primary initiative is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations for reporting randomized trials known as the CONSORT Statement . 

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses – PRISMA The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses ( PRISMA ) is an evidence-based minimum set of items focusing  on the reporting of  reviews evaluating randomized trials and other types of research.

Research using Animals – ARRIVE The Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments ( ARRIVE ) guidelines encourage maximizing the information reported in research using animals thereby minimizing unnecessary studies. (Original study and proposal , and updated guidelines , in PLOS Biology .) 

Laboratory Protocols Protocols.io has developed a platform specifically for the sharing and updating of laboratory protocols , which are assigned their own DOI and can be linked from methods sections of papers to enhance reproducibility. Contextualize your protocol and improve discovery with an accompanying Lab Protocol article in PLOS ONE .

Consistent reporting of Materials, Design, and Analysis – the MDAR checklist A cross-publisher group of editors and experts have developed, tested, and rolled out a checklist to help establish and harmonize reporting standards in the Life Sciences . The checklist , which is available for use by authors to compile their methods, and editors/reviewers to check methods, establishes a minimum set of requirements in transparent reporting and is adaptable to any discipline within the Life Sciences, by covering a breadth of potentially relevant methodological items and considerations. If you are in the Life Sciences and writing up your methods section, try working through the MDAR checklist and see whether it helps you include all relevant details into your methods, and whether it reminded you of anything you might have missed otherwise.

Summary Writing tips

The main challenge you may find when writing your methods is keeping it readable AND covering all the details needed for reproducibility and replicability. While this is difficult, do not compromise on rigorous standards for credibility!

• Keep in mind future replicability, alongside understanding and readability.
• Follow checklists, and field- and journal-specific guidelines.
• Consider a commitment to rigorous and transparent science a personal responsibility, and not just adhering to journal guidelines.
• Establish whether there are persistent identifiers for any research resources you use that can be specifically cited in your methods section.
• Deposit your laboratory protocols in Protocols.io, establishing a permanent link to them. You can update your protocols later if you improve on them, as can future scientists who follow your protocols.
• Consider visual aids like flow-diagrams, lists, to help with reading other sections of the paper.
• Be specific about all decisions made during the experiments that someone reproducing your work would need to know.

Don’t

• Summarize or abbreviate methods without giving full details in a discoverable supplemental section.
• Presume you will always be able to remember how you performed the experiments, or have access to private or institutional notebooks and resources.
• Attempt to hide constraints or non-optimal decisions you had to make–transparency is the key to ensuring the credibility of your research.
• How to Write a Great Title
• How to Write an Abstract
• How to Report Statistics
• How to Write Discussions and Conclusions
• How to Edit Your Work

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

Published on 25 February 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 10 October 2022.

Your research methodology discusses and explains the data collection and analysis methods you used in your research. A key part of your thesis, dissertation, or research paper, the methodology chapter explains what you did and how you did it, allowing readers to evaluate the reliability and validity of your research.

It should include:

• The type of research you conducted
• How you collected and analysed your data
• Any tools or materials you used in the research
• Why you chose these methods
• Your methodology section should generally be written in the past tense .
• Academic style guides in your field may provide detailed guidelines on what to include for different types of studies.
• Your citation style might provide guidelines for your methodology section (e.g., an APA Style methods section ).

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

How to write a research methodology, why is a methods section important, step 1: explain your methodological approach, step 2: describe your data collection methods, step 3: describe your analysis method, step 4: evaluate and justify the methodological choices you made, tips for writing a strong methodology chapter, frequently asked questions about methodology.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

Your methods section is your opportunity to share how you conducted your research and why you chose the methods you chose. It’s also the place to show that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated .

It gives your research legitimacy and situates it within your field, and also gives your readers a place to refer to if they have any questions or critiques in other sections.

You can start by introducing your overall approach to your research. You have two options here.

Option 1: Start with your “what”

What research problem or question did you investigate?

• Aim to describe the characteristics of something?
• Explore an under-researched topic?
• Establish a causal relationship?

And what type of data did you need to achieve this aim?

• Quantitative data , qualitative data , or a mix of both?
• Primary data collected yourself, or secondary data collected by someone else?
• Experimental data gathered by controlling and manipulating variables, or descriptive data gathered via observations?

Option 2: Start with your “why”

Depending on your discipline, you can also start with a discussion of the rationale and assumptions underpinning your methodology. In other words, why did you choose these methods for your study?

• Why is this the best way to answer your research question?
• Is this a standard methodology in your field, or does it require justification?
• Were there any ethical considerations involved in your choices?
• What are the criteria for validity and reliability in this type of research ?

Once you have introduced your reader to your methodological approach, you should share full details about your data collection methods .

Quantitative methods

In order to be considered generalisable, you should describe quantitative research methods in enough detail for another researcher to replicate your study.

Here, explain how you operationalised your concepts and measured your variables. Discuss your sampling method or inclusion/exclusion criteria, as well as any tools, procedures, and materials you used to gather your data.

Surveys Describe where, when, and how the survey was conducted.

• How did you design the questionnaire?
• What form did your questions take (e.g., multiple choice, Likert scale )?
• Were your surveys conducted in-person or virtually?
• What sampling method did you use to select participants?
• What was your sample size and response rate?

Experiments Share full details of the tools, techniques, and procedures you used to conduct your experiment.

• How did you design the experiment ?
• How did you recruit participants?
• How did you manipulate and measure the variables ?
• What tools did you use?

Existing data Explain how you gathered and selected the material (such as datasets or archival data) that you used in your analysis.

• Where did you source the material?
• How was the data originally produced?
• What criteria did you use to select material (e.g., date range)?

The survey consisted of 5 multiple-choice questions and 10 questions measured on a 7-point Likert scale.

The goal was to collect survey responses from 350 customers visiting the fitness apparel company’s brick-and-mortar location in Boston on 4–8 July 2022, between 11:00 and 15:00.

Here, a customer was defined as a person who had purchased a product from the company on the day they took the survey. Participants were given 5 minutes to fill in the survey anonymously. In total, 408 customers responded, but not all surveys were fully completed. Due to this, 371 survey results were included in the analysis.

Qualitative methods

In qualitative research , methods are often more flexible and subjective. For this reason, it’s crucial to robustly explain the methodology choices you made.

Be sure to discuss the criteria you used to select your data, the context in which your research was conducted, and the role you played in collecting your data (e.g., were you an active participant, or a passive observer?)

Interviews or focus groups Describe where, when, and how the interviews were conducted.

• How did you find and select participants?
• How many participants took part?
• What form did the interviews take ( structured , semi-structured , or unstructured )?
• How long were the interviews?
• How were they recorded?

Participant observation Describe where, when, and how you conducted the observation or ethnography .

• What group or community did you observe? How long did you spend there?
• How did you gain access to this group? What role did you play in the community?
• How long did you spend conducting the research? Where was it located?
• How did you record your data (e.g., audiovisual recordings, note-taking)?

Existing data Explain how you selected case study materials for your analysis.

• What type of materials did you analyse?
• How did you select them?

In order to gain better insight into possibilities for future improvement of the fitness shop’s product range, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 returning customers.

Here, a returning customer was defined as someone who usually bought products at least twice a week from the store.

Surveys were used to select participants. Interviews were conducted in a small office next to the cash register and lasted approximately 20 minutes each. Answers were recorded by note-taking, and seven interviews were also filmed with consent. One interviewee preferred not to be filmed.

Mixed methods

Mixed methods research combines quantitative and qualitative approaches. If a standalone quantitative or qualitative study is insufficient to answer your research question, mixed methods may be a good fit for you.

Mixed methods are less common than standalone analyses, largely because they require a great deal of effort to pull off successfully. If you choose to pursue mixed methods, it’s especially important to robustly justify your methods here.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Next, you should indicate how you processed and analysed your data. Avoid going into too much detail: you should not start introducing or discussing any of your results at this stage.

In quantitative research , your analysis will be based on numbers. In your methods section, you can include:

• How you prepared the data before analysing it (e.g., checking for missing data , removing outliers , transforming variables)
• Which software you used (e.g., SPSS, Stata or R)
• Which statistical tests you used (e.g., two-tailed t test , simple linear regression )

In qualitative research, your analysis will be based on language, images, and observations (often involving some form of textual analysis ).

Specific methods might include:

• Content analysis : Categorising and discussing the meaning of words, phrases and sentences
• Thematic analysis : Coding and closely examining the data to identify broad themes and patterns
• Discourse analysis : Studying communication and meaning in relation to their social context

Mixed methods combine the above two research methods, integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches into one coherent analytical process.

Above all, your methodology section should clearly make the case for why you chose the methods you did. This is especially true if you did not take the most standard approach to your topic. In this case, discuss why other methods were not suitable for your objectives, and show how this approach contributes new knowledge or understanding.

In any case, it should be overwhelmingly clear to your reader that you set yourself up for success in terms of your methodology’s design. Show how your methods should lead to results that are valid and reliable, while leaving the analysis of the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results for your discussion section .

• Quantitative: Lab-based experiments cannot always accurately simulate real-life situations and behaviours, but they are effective for testing causal relationships between variables .
• Qualitative: Unstructured interviews usually produce results that cannot be generalised beyond the sample group , but they provide a more in-depth understanding of participants’ perceptions, motivations, and emotions.
• Mixed methods: Despite issues systematically comparing differing types of data, a solely quantitative study would not sufficiently incorporate the lived experience of each participant, while a solely qualitative study would be insufficiently generalisable.

Remember that your aim is not just to describe your methods, but to show how and why you applied them. Again, it’s critical to demonstrate that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated.

1. Focus on your objectives and research questions

The methodology section should clearly show why your methods suit your objectives  and convince the reader that you chose the best possible approach to answering your problem statement and research questions .

2. Cite relevant sources

Your methodology can be strengthened by referencing existing research in your field. This can help you to:

• Show that you followed established practice for your type of research
• Discuss how you decided on your approach by evaluating existing research
• Present a novel methodological approach to address a gap in the literature

3. Write for your audience

Consider how much information you need to give, and avoid getting too lengthy. If you are using methods that are standard for your discipline, you probably don’t need to give a lot of background or justification.

Regardless, your methodology should be a clear, well-structured text that makes an argument for your approach, not just a list of technical details and procedures.

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research. Developing your methodology involves studying the research methods used in your field and the theories or principles that underpin them, in order to choose the approach that best matches your objectives.

Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyse data (e.g. interviews, experiments , surveys , statistical tests ).

In a dissertation or scientific paper, the methodology chapter or methods section comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion .

Depending on the length and type of document, you might also include a literature review or theoretical framework before the methodology.

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to test a hypothesis by systematically collecting and analysing data, while qualitative methods allow you to explore ideas and experiences in depth.

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population. Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research.

For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

Statistical sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population. There are various sampling methods you can use to ensure that your sample is representative of the population as a whole.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved 14 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/methodology/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Dissertation Methodology – Structure, Example and Writing Guide

Dissertation Methodology – Structure, Example and Writing Guide

• Table of Contents

Dissertation Methodology

In any research, the methodology chapter is one of the key components of your dissertation. It provides a detailed description of the methods you used to conduct your research and helps readers understand how you obtained your data and how you plan to analyze it. This section is crucial for replicating the study and validating its results.

Here are the basic elements that are typically included in a dissertation methodology:

• Introduction : This section should explain the importance and goals of your research .
• Research Design : Outline your research approach and why it’s appropriate for your study. You might be conducting an experimental research, a qualitative research, a quantitative research, or a mixed-methods research.
• Data Collection : This section should detail the methods you used to collect your data. Did you use surveys, interviews, observations, etc.? Why did you choose these methods? You should also include who your participants were, how you recruited them, and any ethical considerations.
• Data Analysis : Explain how you intend to analyze the data you collected. This could include statistical analysis, thematic analysis, content analysis, etc., depending on the nature of your study.
• Reliability and Validity : Discuss how you’ve ensured the reliability and validity of your study. For instance, you could discuss measures taken to reduce bias, how you ensured that your measures accurately capture what they were intended to, or how you will handle any limitations in your study.
• Ethical Considerations : This is where you state how you have considered ethical issues related to your research, how you have protected the participants’ rights, and how you have complied with the relevant ethical guidelines.
• Limitations : Acknowledge any limitations of your methodology, including any biases and constraints that might have affected your study.
• Summary : Recap the key points of your methodology chapter, highlighting the overall approach and rationalization of your research.

Types of Dissertation Methodology

The type of methodology you choose for your dissertation will depend on the nature of your research question and the field you’re working in. Here are some of the most common types of methodologies used in dissertations:

Experimental Research

This involves creating an experiment that will test your hypothesis. You’ll need to design an experiment, manipulate variables, collect data, and analyze that data to draw conclusions. This is commonly used in fields like psychology, biology, and physics.

Survey Research

This type of research involves gathering data from a large number of participants using tools like questionnaires or surveys. It can be used to collect a large amount of data and is often used in fields like sociology, marketing, and public health.

Qualitative Research

This type of research is used to explore complex phenomena that can’t be easily quantified. Methods include interviews, focus groups, and observations. This methodology is common in fields like anthropology, sociology, and education.

Quantitative Research

Quantitative research uses numerical data to answer research questions. This can include statistical, mathematical, or computational techniques. It’s common in fields like economics, psychology, and health sciences.

Case Study Research

This type of research involves in-depth investigation of a particular case, such as an individual, group, or event. This methodology is often used in psychology, social sciences, and business.

Mixed Methods Research

This combines qualitative and quantitative research methods in a single study. It’s used to answer more complex research questions and is becoming more popular in fields like social sciences, health sciences, and education.

Action Research

This type of research involves taking action and then reflecting upon the results. This cycle of action-reflection-action continues throughout the study. It’s often used in fields like education and organizational development.

Longitudinal Research

This type of research involves studying the same group of individuals over an extended period of time. This could involve surveys, observations, or experiments. It’s common in fields like psychology, sociology, and medicine.

Ethnographic Research

This type of research involves the in-depth study of people and cultures. Researchers immerse themselves in the culture they’re studying to collect data. This is often used in fields like anthropology and social sciences.

Structure of Dissertation Methodology

The structure of a dissertation methodology can vary depending on your field of study, the nature of your research, and the guidelines of your institution. However, a standard structure typically includes the following elements:

• Introduction : Briefly introduce your overall approach to the research. Explain what you plan to explore and why it’s important.
• Research Design/Approach : Describe your overall research design. This can be qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Explain the rationale behind your chosen design and why it is suitable for your research questions or hypotheses.
• Data Collection Methods : Detail the methods you used to collect your data. You should include what type of data you collected, how you collected it, and why you chose this method. If relevant, you can also include information about your sample population, such as how many people participated, how they were chosen, and any relevant demographic information.
• Data Analysis Methods : Explain how you plan to analyze your collected data. This will depend on the nature of your data. For example, if you collected quantitative data, you might discuss statistical analysis techniques. If you collected qualitative data, you might discuss coding strategies, thematic analysis, or narrative analysis.
• Reliability and Validity : Discuss how you’ve ensured the reliability and validity of your research. This might include steps you took to reduce bias or increase the accuracy of your measurements.
• Ethical Considerations : If relevant, discuss any ethical issues associated with your research. This might include how you obtained informed consent from participants, how you ensured participants’ privacy and confidentiality, or any potential conflicts of interest.
• Limitations : Acknowledge any limitations in your research methodology. This could include potential sources of bias, difficulties with data collection, or limitations in your analysis methods.
• Summary/Conclusion : Briefly summarize the key points of your methodology, emphasizing how it helps answer your research questions or hypotheses.

How to Write Dissertation Methodology

Writing a dissertation methodology requires you to be clear and precise about the way you’ve carried out your research. It’s an opportunity to convince your readers of the appropriateness and reliability of your approach to your research question. Here is a basic guideline on how to write your methodology section:

1. Introduction

Start your methodology section by restating your research question(s) or objective(s). This ensures your methodology directly ties into the aim of your research.

2. Approach

Identify your overall approach: qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Explain why you have chosen this approach.

• Qualitative methods are typically used for exploratory research and involve collecting non-numerical data. This might involve interviews, observations, or analysis of texts.
• Quantitative methods are used for research that relies on numerical data. This might involve surveys, experiments, or statistical analysis.
• Mixed methods use a combination of both qualitative and quantitative research methods.

3. Research Design

Describe the overall design of your research. This could involve explaining the type of study (e.g., case study, ethnography, experimental research, etc.), how you’ve defined and measured your variables, and any control measures you’ve implemented.

4. Data Collection

Explain in detail how you collected your data.

• If you’ve used qualitative methods, you might detail how you selected participants for interviews or focus groups, how you conducted observations, or how you analyzed existing texts.
• If you’ve used quantitative methods, you might detail how you designed your survey or experiment, how you collected responses, and how you ensured your data is reliable and valid.

5. Data Analysis

Describe how you analyzed your data.

• If you’re doing qualitative research, this might involve thematic analysis, discourse analysis, or grounded theory.
• If you’re doing quantitative research, you might be conducting statistical tests, regression analysis, or factor analysis.

Discuss any ethical issues related to your research. This might involve explaining how you obtained informed consent, how you’re protecting participants’ privacy, or how you’re managing any potential harms to participants.

7. Reliability and Validity

Discuss the steps you’ve taken to ensure the reliability and validity of your data.

• Reliability refers to the consistency of your measurements, and you might discuss how you’ve piloted your instruments or used standardized measures.
• Validity refers to the accuracy of your measurements, and you might discuss how you’ve ensured your measures reflect the concepts they’re supposed to measure.

8. Limitations

Every study has its limitations. Discuss the potential weaknesses of your chosen methods and explain any obstacles you faced in your research.

9. Conclusion

Summarize the key points of your methodology, emphasizing how it helps to address your research question or objective.

Example of Dissertation Methodology

An Example of Dissertation Methodology is as follows:

Chapter 3: Methodology

• Introduction

This chapter details the methodology adopted in this research. The study aimed to explore the relationship between stress and productivity in the workplace. A mixed-methods research design was used to collect and analyze data.

Research Design

This study adopted a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys with qualitative interviews to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research problem. The rationale for this approach is that while quantitative data can provide a broad overview of the relationships between variables, qualitative data can provide deeper insights into the nuances of these relationships.

Data Collection Methods

Quantitative Data Collection : An online self-report questionnaire was used to collect data from participants. The questionnaire consisted of two standardized scales: the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) to measure stress levels and the Individual Work Productivity Questionnaire (IWPQ) to measure productivity. The sample consisted of 200 office workers randomly selected from various companies in the city.

Qualitative Data Collection : Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 participants chosen from the initial sample. The interview guide included questions about participants’ experiences with stress and how they perceived its impact on their productivity.

Data Analysis Methods

Quantitative Data Analysis : Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the survey data. Pearson’s correlation was used to examine the relationship between stress and productivity.

Qualitative Data Analysis : Interviews were transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis using NVivo software. This process allowed for identifying and analyzing patterns and themes regarding the impact of stress on productivity.

Reliability and Validity

To ensure reliability and validity, standardized measures with good psychometric properties were used. In qualitative data analysis, triangulation was employed by having two researchers independently analyze the data and then compare findings.

Ethical Considerations

All participants provided informed consent prior to their involvement in the study. They were informed about the purpose of the study, their rights as participants, and the confidentiality of their responses.

Limitations

The main limitation of this study is its reliance on self-report measures, which can be subject to biases such as social desirability bias. Moreover, the sample was drawn from a single city, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.

Where to Write Dissertation Methodology

In a dissertation or thesis, the Methodology section usually follows the Literature Review. This placement allows the Methodology to build upon the theoretical framework and existing research outlined in the Literature Review, and precedes the Results or Findings section. Here’s a basic outline of how most dissertations are structured:

• Acknowledgements
• Literature Review (or it may be interspersed throughout the dissertation)
• Methodology
• Results/Findings
• References/Bibliography

In the Methodology chapter, you will discuss the research design, data collection methods, data analysis methods, and any ethical considerations pertaining to your study. This allows your readers to understand how your research was conducted and how you arrived at your results.

Advantages of Dissertation Methodology

The dissertation methodology section plays an important role in a dissertation for several reasons. Here are some of the advantages of having a well-crafted methodology section in your dissertation:

• Clarifies Your Research Approach : The methodology section explains how you plan to tackle your research question, providing a clear plan for data collection and analysis.
• Enables Replication : A detailed methodology allows other researchers to replicate your study. Replication is an important aspect of scientific research because it provides validation of the study’s results.
• Demonstrates Rigor : A well-written methodology shows that you’ve thought critically about your research methods and have chosen the most appropriate ones for your research question. This adds credibility to your study.
• Enhances Transparency : Detailing your methods allows readers to understand the steps you took in your research. This increases the transparency of your study and allows readers to evaluate potential biases or limitations.
• Helps in Addressing Research Limitations : In your methodology section, you can acknowledge and explain the limitations of your research. This is important as it shows you understand that no research method is perfect and there are always potential weaknesses.
• Facilitates Peer Review : A detailed methodology helps peer reviewers assess the soundness of your research design. This is an important part of the publication process if you aim to publish your dissertation in a peer-reviewed journal.
• Establishes the Validity and Reliability : Your methodology section should also include a discussion of the steps you took to ensure the validity and reliability of your measurements, which is crucial for establishing the overall quality of your research.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and...

Dissertation – Format, Example and Template

Dissertation vs Thesis – Key Differences

Ethical Considerations – Types, Examples and...

• Open access
• Published: 07 September 2020

A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why

• Lawrence Mbuagbaw   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5855-5461 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Daeria O. Lawson 1 ,
• Livia Puljak 4 ,
• David B. Allison 5 &
• Lehana Thabane 1 , 2 , 6 , 7 , 8  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  20 , Article number:  226 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

39k Accesses

53 Citations

58 Altmetric

Metrics details

Methodological studies – studies that evaluate the design, analysis or reporting of other research-related reports – play an important role in health research. They help to highlight issues in the conduct of research with the aim of improving health research methodology, and ultimately reducing research waste.

We provide an overview of some of the key aspects of methodological studies such as what they are, and when, how and why they are done. We adopt a “frequently asked questions” format to facilitate reading this paper and provide multiple examples to help guide researchers interested in conducting methodological studies. Some of the topics addressed include: is it necessary to publish a study protocol? How to select relevant research reports and databases for a methodological study? What approaches to data extraction and statistical analysis should be considered when conducting a methodological study? What are potential threats to validity and is there a way to appraise the quality of methodological studies?

Appropriate reflection and application of basic principles of epidemiology and biostatistics are required in the design and analysis of methodological studies. This paper provides an introduction for further discussion about the conduct of methodological studies.

Peer Review reports

The field of meta-research (or research-on-research) has proliferated in recent years in response to issues with research quality and conduct [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. As the name suggests, this field targets issues with research design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Various types of research reports are often examined as the unit of analysis in these studies (e.g. abstracts, full manuscripts, trial registry entries). Like many other novel fields of research, meta-research has seen a proliferation of use before the development of reporting guidance. For example, this was the case with randomized trials for which risk of bias tools and reporting guidelines were only developed much later – after many trials had been published and noted to have limitations [ 4 , 5 ]; and for systematic reviews as well [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. However, in the absence of formal guidance, studies that report on research differ substantially in how they are named, conducted and reported [ 9 , 10 ]. This creates challenges in identifying, summarizing and comparing them. In this tutorial paper, we will use the term methodological study to refer to any study that reports on the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of primary or secondary research-related reports (such as trial registry entries and conference abstracts).

In the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the use of terms related to methodological studies (based on records retrieved with a keyword search [in the title and abstract] for “methodological review” and “meta-epidemiological study” in PubMed up to December 2019), suggesting that these studies may be appearing more frequently in the literature. See Fig.  1 .

Trends in the number studies that mention “methodological review” or “meta-

epidemiological study” in PubMed.

The methods used in many methodological studies have been borrowed from systematic and scoping reviews. This practice has influenced the direction of the field, with many methodological studies including searches of electronic databases, screening of records, duplicate data extraction and assessments of risk of bias in the included studies. However, the research questions posed in methodological studies do not always require the approaches listed above, and guidance is needed on when and how to apply these methods to a methodological study. Even though methodological studies can be conducted on qualitative or mixed methods research, this paper focuses on and draws examples exclusively from quantitative research.

The objectives of this paper are to provide some insights on how to conduct methodological studies so that there is greater consistency between the research questions posed, and the design, analysis and reporting of findings. We provide multiple examples to illustrate concepts and a proposed framework for categorizing methodological studies in quantitative research.

What is a methodological study?

Any study that describes or analyzes methods (design, conduct, analysis or reporting) in published (or unpublished) literature is a methodological study. Consequently, the scope of methodological studies is quite extensive and includes, but is not limited to, topics as diverse as: research question formulation [ 11 ]; adherence to reporting guidelines [ 12 , 13 , 14 ] and consistency in reporting [ 15 ]; approaches to study analysis [ 16 ]; investigating the credibility of analyses [ 17 ]; and studies that synthesize these methodological studies [ 18 ]. While the nomenclature of methodological studies is not uniform, the intents and purposes of these studies remain fairly consistent – to describe or analyze methods in primary or secondary studies. As such, methodological studies may also be classified as a subtype of observational studies.

Parallel to this are experimental studies that compare different methods. Even though they play an important role in informing optimal research methods, experimental methodological studies are beyond the scope of this paper. Examples of such studies include the randomized trials by Buscemi et al., comparing single data extraction to double data extraction [ 19 ], and Carrasco-Labra et al., comparing approaches to presenting findings in Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) summary of findings tables [ 20 ]. In these studies, the unit of analysis is the person or groups of individuals applying the methods. We also direct readers to the Studies Within a Trial (SWAT) and Studies Within a Review (SWAR) programme operated through the Hub for Trials Methodology Research, for further reading as a potential useful resource for these types of experimental studies [ 21 ]. Lastly, this paper is not meant to inform the conduct of research using computational simulation and mathematical modeling for which some guidance already exists [ 22 ], or studies on the development of methods using consensus-based approaches.

When should we conduct a methodological study?

Methodological studies occupy a unique niche in health research that allows them to inform methodological advances. Methodological studies should also be conducted as pre-cursors to reporting guideline development, as they provide an opportunity to understand current practices, and help to identify the need for guidance and gaps in methodological or reporting quality. For example, the development of the popular Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were preceded by methodological studies identifying poor reporting practices [ 23 , 24 ]. In these instances, after the reporting guidelines are published, methodological studies can also be used to monitor uptake of the guidelines.

These studies can also be conducted to inform the state of the art for design, analysis and reporting practices across different types of health research fields, with the aim of improving research practices, and preventing or reducing research waste. For example, Samaan et al. conducted a scoping review of adherence to different reporting guidelines in health care literature [ 18 ]. Methodological studies can also be used to determine the factors associated with reporting practices. For example, Abbade et al. investigated journal characteristics associated with the use of the Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe (PICOT) format in framing research questions in trials of venous ulcer disease [ 11 ].

How often are methodological studies conducted?

There is no clear answer to this question. Based on a search of PubMed, the use of related terms (“methodological review” and “meta-epidemiological study”) – and therefore, the number of methodological studies – is on the rise. However, many other terms are used to describe methodological studies. There are also many studies that explore design, conduct, analysis or reporting of research reports, but that do not use any specific terms to describe or label their study design in terms of “methodology”. This diversity in nomenclature makes a census of methodological studies elusive. Appropriate terminology and key words for methodological studies are needed to facilitate improved accessibility for end-users.

Why do we conduct methodological studies?

Methodological studies provide information on the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of primary and secondary research and can be used to appraise quality, quantity, completeness, accuracy and consistency of health research. These issues can be explored in specific fields, journals, databases, geographical regions and time periods. For example, Areia et al. explored the quality of reporting of endoscopic diagnostic studies in gastroenterology [ 25 ]; Knol et al. investigated the reporting of p -values in baseline tables in randomized trial published in high impact journals [ 26 ]; Chen et al. describe adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement in Chinese Journals [ 27 ]; and Hopewell et al. describe the effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on reporting of abstracts over time [ 28 ]. Methodological studies provide useful information to researchers, clinicians, editors, publishers and users of health literature. As a result, these studies have been at the cornerstone of important methodological developments in the past two decades and have informed the development of many health research guidelines including the highly cited CONSORT statement [ 5 ].

Where can we find methodological studies?

Methodological studies can be found in most common biomedical bibliographic databases (e.g. Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science). However, the biggest caveat is that methodological studies are hard to identify in the literature due to the wide variety of names used and the lack of comprehensive databases dedicated to them. A handful can be found in the Cochrane Library as “Cochrane Methodology Reviews”, but these studies only cover methodological issues related to systematic reviews. Previous attempts to catalogue all empirical studies of methods used in reviews were abandoned 10 years ago [ 29 ]. In other databases, a variety of search terms may be applied with different levels of sensitivity and specificity.

Some frequently asked questions about methodological studies

In this section, we have outlined responses to questions that might help inform the conduct of methodological studies.

Q: How should I select research reports for my methodological study?

A: Selection of research reports for a methodological study depends on the research question and eligibility criteria. Once a clear research question is set and the nature of literature one desires to review is known, one can then begin the selection process. Selection may begin with a broad search, especially if the eligibility criteria are not apparent. For example, a methodological study of Cochrane Reviews of HIV would not require a complex search as all eligible studies can easily be retrieved from the Cochrane Library after checking a few boxes [ 30 ]. On the other hand, a methodological study of subgroup analyses in trials of gastrointestinal oncology would require a search to find such trials, and further screening to identify trials that conducted a subgroup analysis [ 31 ].

The strategies used for identifying participants in observational studies can apply here. One may use a systematic search to identify all eligible studies. If the number of eligible studies is unmanageable, a random sample of articles can be expected to provide comparable results if it is sufficiently large [ 32 ]. For example, Wilson et al. used a random sample of trials from the Cochrane Stroke Group’s Trial Register to investigate completeness of reporting [ 33 ]. It is possible that a simple random sample would lead to underrepresentation of units (i.e. research reports) that are smaller in number. This is relevant if the investigators wish to compare multiple groups but have too few units in one group. In this case a stratified sample would help to create equal groups. For example, in a methodological study comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, Kahale et al. drew random samples from both groups [ 34 ]. Alternatively, systematic or purposeful sampling strategies can be used and we encourage researchers to justify their selected approaches based on the study objective.

Q: How many databases should I search?

A: The number of databases one should search would depend on the approach to sampling, which can include targeting the entire “population” of interest or a sample of that population. If you are interested in including the entire target population for your research question, or drawing a random or systematic sample from it, then a comprehensive and exhaustive search for relevant articles is required. In this case, we recommend using systematic approaches for searching electronic databases (i.e. at least 2 databases with a replicable and time stamped search strategy). The results of your search will constitute a sampling frame from which eligible studies can be drawn.

Alternatively, if your approach to sampling is purposeful, then we recommend targeting the database(s) or data sources (e.g. journals, registries) that include the information you need. For example, if you are conducting a methodological study of high impact journals in plastic surgery and they are all indexed in PubMed, you likely do not need to search any other databases. You may also have a comprehensive list of all journals of interest and can approach your search using the journal names in your database search (or by accessing the journal archives directly from the journal’s website). Even though one could also search journals’ web pages directly, using a database such as PubMed has multiple advantages, such as the use of filters, so the search can be narrowed down to a certain period, or study types of interest. Furthermore, individual journals’ web sites may have different search functionalities, which do not necessarily yield a consistent output.

Q: Should I publish a protocol for my methodological study?

A: A protocol is a description of intended research methods. Currently, only protocols for clinical trials require registration [ 35 ]. Protocols for systematic reviews are encouraged but no formal recommendation exists. The scientific community welcomes the publication of protocols because they help protect against selective outcome reporting, the use of post hoc methodologies to embellish results, and to help avoid duplication of efforts [ 36 ]. While the latter two risks exist in methodological research, the negative consequences may be substantially less than for clinical outcomes. In a sample of 31 methodological studies, 7 (22.6%) referenced a published protocol [ 9 ]. In the Cochrane Library, there are 15 protocols for methodological reviews (21 July 2020). This suggests that publishing protocols for methodological studies is not uncommon.

Authors can consider publishing their study protocol in a scholarly journal as a manuscript. Advantages of such publication include obtaining peer-review feedback about the planned study, and easy retrieval by searching databases such as PubMed. The disadvantages in trying to publish protocols includes delays associated with manuscript handling and peer review, as well as costs, as few journals publish study protocols, and those journals mostly charge article-processing fees [ 37 ]. Authors who would like to make their protocol publicly available without publishing it in scholarly journals, could deposit their study protocols in publicly available repositories, such as the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ ).

Q: How to appraise the quality of a methodological study?

A: To date, there is no published tool for appraising the risk of bias in a methodological study, but in principle, a methodological study could be considered as a type of observational study. Therefore, during conduct or appraisal, care should be taken to avoid the biases common in observational studies [ 38 ]. These biases include selection bias, comparability of groups, and ascertainment of exposure or outcome. In other words, to generate a representative sample, a comprehensive reproducible search may be necessary to build a sampling frame. Additionally, random sampling may be necessary to ensure that all the included research reports have the same probability of being selected, and the screening and selection processes should be transparent and reproducible. To ensure that the groups compared are similar in all characteristics, matching, random sampling or stratified sampling can be used. Statistical adjustments for between-group differences can also be applied at the analysis stage. Finally, duplicate data extraction can reduce errors in assessment of exposures or outcomes.

Q: Should I justify a sample size?

A: In all instances where one is not using the target population (i.e. the group to which inferences from the research report are directed) [ 39 ], a sample size justification is good practice. The sample size justification may take the form of a description of what is expected to be achieved with the number of articles selected, or a formal sample size estimation that outlines the number of articles required to answer the research question with a certain precision and power. Sample size justifications in methodological studies are reasonable in the following instances:

Comparing two groups

Determining a proportion, mean or another quantifier

Determining factors associated with an outcome using regression-based analyses

For example, El Dib et al. computed a sample size requirement for a methodological study of diagnostic strategies in randomized trials, based on a confidence interval approach [ 40 ].

Q: What should I call my study?

A: Other terms which have been used to describe/label methodological studies include “ methodological review ”, “methodological survey” , “meta-epidemiological study” , “systematic review” , “systematic survey”, “meta-research”, “research-on-research” and many others. We recommend that the study nomenclature be clear, unambiguous, informative and allow for appropriate indexing. Methodological study nomenclature that should be avoided includes “ systematic review” – as this will likely be confused with a systematic review of a clinical question. “ Systematic survey” may also lead to confusion about whether the survey was systematic (i.e. using a preplanned methodology) or a survey using “ systematic” sampling (i.e. a sampling approach using specific intervals to determine who is selected) [ 32 ]. Any of the above meanings of the words “ systematic” may be true for methodological studies and could be potentially misleading. “ Meta-epidemiological study” is ideal for indexing, but not very informative as it describes an entire field. The term “ review ” may point towards an appraisal or “review” of the design, conduct, analysis or reporting (or methodological components) of the targeted research reports, yet it has also been used to describe narrative reviews [ 41 , 42 ]. The term “ survey ” is also in line with the approaches used in many methodological studies [ 9 ], and would be indicative of the sampling procedures of this study design. However, in the absence of guidelines on nomenclature, the term “ methodological study ” is broad enough to capture most of the scenarios of such studies.

Q: Should I account for clustering in my methodological study?

A: Data from methodological studies are often clustered. For example, articles coming from a specific source may have different reporting standards (e.g. the Cochrane Library). Articles within the same journal may be similar due to editorial practices and policies, reporting requirements and endorsement of guidelines. There is emerging evidence that these are real concerns that should be accounted for in analyses [ 43 ]. Some cluster variables are described in the section: “ What variables are relevant to methodological studies?”

A variety of modelling approaches can be used to account for correlated data, including the use of marginal, fixed or mixed effects regression models with appropriate computation of standard errors [ 44 ]. For example, Kosa et al. used generalized estimation equations to account for correlation of articles within journals [ 15 ]. Not accounting for clustering could lead to incorrect p -values, unduly narrow confidence intervals, and biased estimates [ 45 ].

Q: Should I extract data in duplicate?

A: Yes. Duplicate data extraction takes more time but results in less errors [ 19 ]. Data extraction errors in turn affect the effect estimate [ 46 ], and therefore should be mitigated. Duplicate data extraction should be considered in the absence of other approaches to minimize extraction errors. However, much like systematic reviews, this area will likely see rapid new advances with machine learning and natural language processing technologies to support researchers with screening and data extraction [ 47 , 48 ]. However, experience plays an important role in the quality of extracted data and inexperienced extractors should be paired with experienced extractors [ 46 , 49 ].

Q: Should I assess the risk of bias of research reports included in my methodological study?

A : Risk of bias is most useful in determining the certainty that can be placed in the effect measure from a study. In methodological studies, risk of bias may not serve the purpose of determining the trustworthiness of results, as effect measures are often not the primary goal of methodological studies. Determining risk of bias in methodological studies is likely a practice borrowed from systematic review methodology, but whose intrinsic value is not obvious in methodological studies. When it is part of the research question, investigators often focus on one aspect of risk of bias. For example, Speich investigated how blinding was reported in surgical trials [ 50 ], and Abraha et al., investigated the application of intention-to-treat analyses in systematic reviews and trials [ 51 ].

Q: What variables are relevant to methodological studies?

A: There is empirical evidence that certain variables may inform the findings in a methodological study. We outline some of these and provide a brief overview below:

Country: Countries and regions differ in their research cultures, and the resources available to conduct research. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that there may be differences in methodological features across countries. Methodological studies have reported loco-regional differences in reporting quality [ 52 , 53 ]. This may also be related to challenges non-English speakers face in publishing papers in English.

Authors’ expertise: The inclusion of authors with expertise in research methodology, biostatistics, and scientific writing is likely to influence the end-product. Oltean et al. found that among randomized trials in orthopaedic surgery, the use of analyses that accounted for clustering was more likely when specialists (e.g. statistician, epidemiologist or clinical trials methodologist) were included on the study team [ 54 ]. Fleming et al. found that including methodologists in the review team was associated with appropriate use of reporting guidelines [ 55 ].

Source of funding and conflicts of interest: Some studies have found that funded studies report better [ 56 , 57 ], while others do not [ 53 , 58 ]. The presence of funding would indicate the availability of resources deployed to ensure optimal design, conduct, analysis and reporting. However, the source of funding may introduce conflicts of interest and warrant assessment. For example, Kaiser et al. investigated the effect of industry funding on obesity or nutrition randomized trials and found that reporting quality was similar [ 59 ]. Thomas et al. looked at reporting quality of long-term weight loss trials and found that industry funded studies were better [ 60 ]. Kan et al. examined the association between industry funding and “positive trials” (trials reporting a significant intervention effect) and found that industry funding was highly predictive of a positive trial [ 61 ]. This finding is similar to that of a recent Cochrane Methodology Review by Hansen et al. [ 62 ]

Journal characteristics: Certain journals’ characteristics may influence the study design, analysis or reporting. Characteristics such as journal endorsement of guidelines [ 63 , 64 ], and Journal Impact Factor (JIF) have been shown to be associated with reporting [ 63 , 65 , 66 , 67 ].

Study size (sample size/number of sites): Some studies have shown that reporting is better in larger studies [ 53 , 56 , 58 ].

Year of publication: It is reasonable to assume that design, conduct, analysis and reporting of research will change over time. Many studies have demonstrated improvements in reporting over time or after the publication of reporting guidelines [ 68 , 69 ].

Type of intervention: In a methodological study of reporting quality of weight loss intervention studies, Thabane et al. found that trials of pharmacologic interventions were reported better than trials of non-pharmacologic interventions [ 70 ].

Interactions between variables: Complex interactions between the previously listed variables are possible. High income countries with more resources may be more likely to conduct larger studies and incorporate a variety of experts. Authors in certain countries may prefer certain journals, and journal endorsement of guidelines and editorial policies may change over time.

Q: Should I focus only on high impact journals?

A: Investigators may choose to investigate only high impact journals because they are more likely to influence practice and policy, or because they assume that methodological standards would be higher. However, the JIF may severely limit the scope of articles included and may skew the sample towards articles with positive findings. The generalizability and applicability of findings from a handful of journals must be examined carefully, especially since the JIF varies over time. Even among journals that are all “high impact”, variations exist in methodological standards.

Q: Can I conduct a methodological study of qualitative research?

A: Yes. Even though a lot of methodological research has been conducted in the quantitative research field, methodological studies of qualitative studies are feasible. Certain databases that catalogue qualitative research including the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) have defined subject headings that are specific to methodological research (e.g. “research methodology”). Alternatively, one could also conduct a qualitative methodological review; that is, use qualitative approaches to synthesize methodological issues in qualitative studies.

Q: What reporting guidelines should I use for my methodological study?

A: There is no guideline that covers the entire scope of methodological studies. One adaptation of the PRISMA guidelines has been published, which works well for studies that aim to use the entire target population of research reports [ 71 ]. However, it is not widely used (40 citations in 2 years as of 09 December 2019), and methodological studies that are designed as cross-sectional or before-after studies require a more fit-for purpose guideline. A more encompassing reporting guideline for a broad range of methodological studies is currently under development [ 72 ]. However, in the absence of formal guidance, the requirements for scientific reporting should be respected, and authors of methodological studies should focus on transparency and reproducibility.

Q: What are the potential threats to validity and how can I avoid them?

A: Methodological studies may be compromised by a lack of internal or external validity. The main threats to internal validity in methodological studies are selection and confounding bias. Investigators must ensure that the methods used to select articles does not make them differ systematically from the set of articles to which they would like to make inferences. For example, attempting to make extrapolations to all journals after analyzing high-impact journals would be misleading.

Many factors (confounders) may distort the association between the exposure and outcome if the included research reports differ with respect to these factors [ 73 ]. For example, when examining the association between source of funding and completeness of reporting, it may be necessary to account for journals that endorse the guidelines. Confounding bias can be addressed by restriction, matching and statistical adjustment [ 73 ]. Restriction appears to be the method of choice for many investigators who choose to include only high impact journals or articles in a specific field. For example, Knol et al. examined the reporting of p -values in baseline tables of high impact journals [ 26 ]. Matching is also sometimes used. In the methodological study of non-randomized interventional studies of elective ventral hernia repair, Parker et al. matched prospective studies with retrospective studies and compared reporting standards [ 74 ]. Some other methodological studies use statistical adjustments. For example, Zhang et al. used regression techniques to determine the factors associated with missing participant data in trials [ 16 ].

With regard to external validity, researchers interested in conducting methodological studies must consider how generalizable or applicable their findings are. This should tie in closely with the research question and should be explicit. For example. Findings from methodological studies on trials published in high impact cardiology journals cannot be assumed to be applicable to trials in other fields. However, investigators must ensure that their sample truly represents the target sample either by a) conducting a comprehensive and exhaustive search, or b) using an appropriate and justified, randomly selected sample of research reports.

Even applicability to high impact journals may vary based on the investigators’ definition, and over time. For example, for high impact journals in the field of general medicine, Bouwmeester et al. included the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM), BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and PLoS Medicine ( n  = 6) [ 75 ]. In contrast, the high impact journals selected in the methodological study by Schiller et al. were BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM ( n  = 4) [ 76 ]. Another methodological study by Kosa et al. included AIM, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and NEJM ( n  = 5). In the methodological study by Thabut et al., journals with a JIF greater than 5 were considered to be high impact. Riado Minguez et al. used first quartile journals in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) for a specific year to determine “high impact” [ 77 ]. Ultimately, the definition of high impact will be based on the number of journals the investigators are willing to include, the year of impact and the JIF cut-off [ 78 ]. We acknowledge that the term “generalizability” may apply differently for methodological studies, especially when in many instances it is possible to include the entire target population in the sample studied.

Finally, methodological studies are not exempt from information bias which may stem from discrepancies in the included research reports [ 79 ], errors in data extraction, or inappropriate interpretation of the information extracted. Likewise, publication bias may also be a concern in methodological studies, but such concepts have not yet been explored.

A proposed framework

In order to inform discussions about methodological studies, the development of guidance for what should be reported, we have outlined some key features of methodological studies that can be used to classify them. For each of the categories outlined below, we provide an example. In our experience, the choice of approach to completing a methodological study can be informed by asking the following four questions:

What is the aim?

Methodological studies that investigate bias

A methodological study may be focused on exploring sources of bias in primary or secondary studies (meta-bias), or how bias is analyzed. We have taken care to distinguish bias (i.e. systematic deviations from the truth irrespective of the source) from reporting quality or completeness (i.e. not adhering to a specific reporting guideline or norm). An example of where this distinction would be important is in the case of a randomized trial with no blinding. This study (depending on the nature of the intervention) would be at risk of performance bias. However, if the authors report that their study was not blinded, they would have reported adequately. In fact, some methodological studies attempt to capture both “quality of conduct” and “quality of reporting”, such as Richie et al., who reported on the risk of bias in randomized trials of pharmacy practice interventions [ 80 ]. Babic et al. investigated how risk of bias was used to inform sensitivity analyses in Cochrane reviews [ 81 ]. Further, biases related to choice of outcomes can also be explored. For example, Tan et al investigated differences in treatment effect size based on the outcome reported [ 82 ].

Methodological studies that investigate quality (or completeness) of reporting

Methodological studies may report quality of reporting against a reporting checklist (i.e. adherence to guidelines) or against expected norms. For example, Croituro et al. report on the quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals based on their adherence to the PRISMA statement [ 83 ], and Khan et al. described the quality of reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials published in high impact cardiovascular journals based on the CONSORT extension for harms [ 84 ]. Other methodological studies investigate reporting of certain features of interest that may not be part of formally published checklists or guidelines. For example, Mbuagbaw et al. described how often the implications for research are elaborated using the Evidence, Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe (EPICOT) format [ 30 ].

Methodological studies that investigate the consistency of reporting

Sometimes investigators may be interested in how consistent reports of the same research are, as it is expected that there should be consistency between: conference abstracts and published manuscripts; manuscript abstracts and manuscript main text; and trial registration and published manuscript. For example, Rosmarakis et al. investigated consistency between conference abstracts and full text manuscripts [ 85 ].

Methodological studies that investigate factors associated with reporting

In addition to identifying issues with reporting in primary and secondary studies, authors of methodological studies may be interested in determining the factors that are associated with certain reporting practices. Many methodological studies incorporate this, albeit as a secondary outcome. For example, Farrokhyar et al. investigated the factors associated with reporting quality in randomized trials of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery [ 53 ].

Methodological studies that investigate methods

Methodological studies may also be used to describe methods or compare methods, and the factors associated with methods. Muller et al. described the methods used for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies [ 86 ].

Methodological studies that summarize other methodological studies

Some methodological studies synthesize results from other methodological studies. For example, Li et al. conducted a scoping review of methodological reviews that investigated consistency between full text and abstracts in primary biomedical research [ 87 ].

Methodological studies that investigate nomenclature and terminology

Some methodological studies may investigate the use of names and terms in health research. For example, Martinic et al. investigated the definitions of systematic reviews used in overviews of systematic reviews (OSRs), meta-epidemiological studies and epidemiology textbooks [ 88 ].

Other types of methodological studies

In addition to the previously mentioned experimental methodological studies, there may exist other types of methodological studies not captured here.

What is the design?

Methodological studies that are descriptive

Most methodological studies are purely descriptive and report their findings as counts (percent) and means (standard deviation) or medians (interquartile range). For example, Mbuagbaw et al. described the reporting of research recommendations in Cochrane HIV systematic reviews [ 30 ]. Gohari et al. described the quality of reporting of randomized trials in diabetes in Iran [ 12 ].

Methodological studies that are analytical

Some methodological studies are analytical wherein “analytical studies identify and quantify associations, test hypotheses, identify causes and determine whether an association exists between variables, such as between an exposure and a disease.” [ 89 ] In the case of methodological studies all these investigations are possible. For example, Kosa et al. investigated the association between agreement in primary outcome from trial registry to published manuscript and study covariates. They found that larger and more recent studies were more likely to have agreement [ 15 ]. Tricco et al. compared the conclusion statements from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews with a meta-analysis of the primary outcome and found that non-Cochrane reviews were more likely to report positive findings. These results are a test of the null hypothesis that the proportions of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews that report positive results are equal [ 90 ].

What is the sampling strategy?

Methodological studies that include the target population

Methodological reviews with narrow research questions may be able to include the entire target population. For example, in the methodological study of Cochrane HIV systematic reviews, Mbuagbaw et al. included all of the available studies ( n  = 103) [ 30 ].

Methodological studies that include a sample of the target population

Many methodological studies use random samples of the target population [ 33 , 91 , 92 ]. Alternatively, purposeful sampling may be used, limiting the sample to a subset of research-related reports published within a certain time period, or in journals with a certain ranking or on a topic. Systematic sampling can also be used when random sampling may be challenging to implement.

What is the unit of analysis?

Methodological studies with a research report as the unit of analysis

Many methodological studies use a research report (e.g. full manuscript of study, abstract portion of the study) as the unit of analysis, and inferences can be made at the study-level. However, both published and unpublished research-related reports can be studied. These may include articles, conference abstracts, registry entries etc.

Methodological studies with a design, analysis or reporting item as the unit of analysis

Some methodological studies report on items which may occur more than once per article. For example, Paquette et al. report on subgroup analyses in Cochrane reviews of atrial fibrillation in which 17 systematic reviews planned 56 subgroup analyses [ 93 ].

This framework is outlined in Fig.  2 .

A proposed framework for methodological studies

Conclusions

Methodological studies have examined different aspects of reporting such as quality, completeness, consistency and adherence to reporting guidelines. As such, many of the methodological study examples cited in this tutorial are related to reporting. However, as an evolving field, the scope of research questions that can be addressed by methodological studies is expected to increase.

In this paper we have outlined the scope and purpose of methodological studies, along with examples of instances in which various approaches have been used. In the absence of formal guidance on the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of methodological studies, we have provided some advice to help make methodological studies consistent. This advice is grounded in good contemporary scientific practice. Generally, the research question should tie in with the sampling approach and planned analysis. We have also highlighted the variables that may inform findings from methodological studies. Lastly, we have provided suggestions for ways in which authors can categorize their methodological studies to inform their design and analysis.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Abbreviations

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

Evidence, Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe

Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations

Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe

Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses

Studies Within a Review

Studies Within a Trial

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, Gotzsche PC, Krumholz HM, Ghersi D, van der Worp HB. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):257–66.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, Schulz KF, Tibshirani R. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166–75.

Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.

Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, Henry DA, Boers M. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1013–20.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D, Tugwell P, Welch V, Kristjansson E, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Bmj. 2017;358:j4008.

Lawson DO, Leenus A, Mbuagbaw L. Mapping the nomenclature, methodology, and reporting of studies that review methods: a pilot methodological review. Pilot Feasibility Studies. 2020;6(1):13.

Puljak L, Makaric ZL, Buljan I, Pieper D. What is a meta-epidemiological study? Analysis of published literature indicated heterogeneous study designs and definitions. J Comp Eff Res. 2020.

Abbade LPF, Wang M, Sriganesh K, Jin Y, Mbuagbaw L, Thabane L. The framing of research questions using the PICOT format in randomized controlled trials of venous ulcer disease is suboptimal: a systematic survey. Wound Repair Regen. 2017;25(5):892–900.

Gohari F, Baradaran HR, Tabatabaee M, Anijidani S, Mohammadpour Touserkani F, Atlasi R, Razmgir M. Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in diabetes in Iran; a systematic review. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2015;15(1):36.

Wang M, Jin Y, Hu ZJ, Thabane A, Dennis B, Gajic-Veljanoski O, Paul J, Thabane L. The reporting quality of abstracts of stepped wedge randomized trials is suboptimal: a systematic survey of the literature. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017;8:1–10.

Shanthanna H, Kaushal A, Mbuagbaw L, Couban R, Busse J, Thabane L: A cross-sectional study of the reporting quality of pilot or feasibility trials in high-impact anesthesia journals Can J Anaesthesia 2018, 65(11):1180–1195.

Kosa SD, Mbuagbaw L, Borg Debono V, Bhandari M, Dennis BB, Ene G, Leenus A, Shi D, Thabane M, Valvasori S, et al. Agreement in reporting between trial publications and current clinical trial registry in high impact journals: a methodological review. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2018;65:144–50.

Zhang Y, Florez ID, Colunga Lozano LE, Aloweni FAB, Kennedy SA, Li A, Craigie S, Zhang S, Agarwal A, Lopes LC, et al. A systematic survey on reporting and methods for handling missing participant data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:57–66.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hernández AV, Boersma E, Murray GD, Habbema JD, Steyerberg EW. Subgroup analyses in therapeutic cardiovascular clinical trials: are most of them misleading? Am Heart J. 2006;151(2):257–64.

Samaan Z, Mbuagbaw L, Kosa D, Borg Debono V, Dillenburg R, Zhang S, Fruci V, Dennis B, Bawor M, Thabane L. A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2013;6:169–88.

Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(7):697–703.

Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Santesso N, Neumann I, Mustafa RA, Mbuagbaw L, Etxeandia Ikobaltzeta I, De Stio C, McCullagh LJ, Alonso-Coello P. Improving GRADE evidence tables part 1: a randomized trial shows improved understanding of content in summary-of-findings tables with a new format. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;74:7–18.

The Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research: SWAT/SWAR Information [ https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/SWATSWARInformation/ ]. Accessed 31 Aug 2020.

Chick S, Sánchez P, Ferrin D, Morrice D. How to conduct a successful simulation study. In: Proceedings of the 2003 winter simulation conference: 2003; 2003. p. 66–70.

Google Scholar  

Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106(3):485–8.

Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B. Meta-analysis: an update. Mount Sinai J Med New York. 1996;63(3–4):216–24.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Areia M, Soares M, Dinis-Ribeiro M. Quality reporting of endoscopic diagnostic studies in gastrointestinal journals: where do we stand on the use of the STARD and CONSORT statements? Endoscopy. 2010;42(2):138–47.

Knol M, Groenwold R, Grobbee D. P-values in baseline tables of randomised controlled trials are inappropriate but still common in high impact journals. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2012;19(2):231–2.

Chen M, Cui J, Zhang AL, Sze DM, Xue CC, May BH. Adherence to CONSORT items in randomized controlled trials of integrative medicine for colorectal Cancer published in Chinese journals. J Altern Complement Med. 2018;24(2):115–24.

Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G, Boutron I. Effect of editors' implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:e4178.

The Cochrane Methodology Register Issue 2 2009 [ https://cmr.cochrane.org/help.htm ]. Accessed 31 Aug 2020.

Mbuagbaw L, Kredo T, Welch V, Mursleen S, Ross S, Zani B, Motaze NV, Quinlan L. Critical EPICOT items were absent in Cochrane human immunodeficiency virus systematic reviews: a bibliometric analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;74:66–72.

Barton S, Peckitt C, Sclafani F, Cunningham D, Chau I. The influence of industry sponsorship on the reporting of subgroup analyses within phase III randomised controlled trials in gastrointestinal oncology. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(18):2732–9.

Setia MS. Methodology series module 5: sampling strategies. Indian J Dermatol. 2016;61(5):505–9.

Wilson B, Burnett P, Moher D, Altman DG, Al-Shahi Salman R. Completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials including people with transient ischaemic attack or stroke: a systematic review. Eur Stroke J. 2018;3(4):337–46.

Kahale LA, Diab B, Brignardello-Petersen R, Agarwal A, Mustafa RA, Kwong J, Neumann I, Li L, Lopes LC, Briel M, et al. Systematic reviews do not adequately report or address missing outcome data in their analyses: a methodological survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;99:14–23.

De Angelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJPM, et al. Is this clinical trial fully registered?: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors*. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(2):146–8.

Ohtake PJ, Childs JD. Why publish study protocols? Phys Ther. 2014;94(9):1208–9.

Rombey T, Allers K, Mathes T, Hoffmann F, Pieper D. A descriptive analysis of the characteristics and the peer review process of systematic review protocols published in an open peer review journal from 2012 to 2017. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):57.

Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet. 2002;359(9302):248–52.

Porta M (ed.): A dictionary of epidemiology, 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc.; 2008.

El Dib R, Tikkinen KAO, Akl EA, Gomaa HA, Mustafa RA, Agarwal A, Carpenter CR, Zhang Y, Jorge EC, Almeida R, et al. Systematic survey of randomized trials evaluating the impact of alternative diagnostic strategies on patient-important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;84:61–9.

Helzer JE, Robins LN, Taibleson M, Woodruff RA Jr, Reich T, Wish ED. Reliability of psychiatric diagnosis. I. a methodological review. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1977;34(2):129–33.

Chung ST, Chacko SK, Sunehag AL, Haymond MW. Measurements of gluconeogenesis and Glycogenolysis: a methodological review. Diabetes. 2015;64(12):3996–4010.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sterne JA, Juni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1513–24.

Moen EL, Fricano-Kugler CJ, Luikart BW, O’Malley AJ. Analyzing clustered data: why and how to account for multiple observations nested within a study participant? PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0146721.

Zyzanski SJ, Flocke SA, Dickinson LM. On the nature and analysis of clustered data. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(3):199–200.

Mathes T, Klassen P, Pieper D. Frequency of data extraction errors and methods to increase data extraction quality: a methodological review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):152.

Bui DDA, Del Fiol G, Hurdle JF, Jonnalagadda S. Extractive text summarization system to aid data extraction from full text in systematic review development. J Biomed Inform. 2016;64:265–72.

Bui DD, Del Fiol G, Jonnalagadda S. PDF text classification to leverage information extraction from publication reports. J Biomed Inform. 2016;61:141–8.

Maticic K, Krnic Martinic M, Puljak L. Assessment of reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analysis using PRISMA-A and discordance in assessments between raters without prior experience. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):32.

Speich B. Blinding in surgical randomized clinical trials in 2015. Ann Surg. 2017;266(1):21–2.

Abraha I, Cozzolino F, Orso M, Marchesi M, Germani A, Lombardo G, Eusebi P, De Florio R, Luchetta ML, Iorio A, et al. A systematic review found that deviations from intention-to-treat are common in randomized trials and systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;84:37–46.

Zhong Y, Zhou W, Jiang H, Fan T, Diao X, Yang H, Min J, Wang G, Fu J, Mao B. Quality of reporting of two-group parallel randomized controlled clinical trials of multi-herb formulae: A survey of reports indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded. Eur J Integrative Med. 2011;3(4):e309–16.

Farrokhyar F, Chu R, Whitlock R, Thabane L. A systematic review of the quality of publications reporting coronary artery bypass grafting trials. Can J Surg. 2007;50(4):266–77.

Oltean H, Gagnier JJ. Use of clustering analysis in randomized controlled trials in orthopaedic surgery. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:17.

Fleming PS, Koletsi D, Pandis N. Blinded by PRISMA: are systematic reviewers focusing on PRISMA and ignoring other guidelines? PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e96407.

Balasubramanian SP, Wiener M, Alshameeri Z, Tiruvoipati R, Elbourne D, Reed MW. Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: can we do better? Ann Surg. 2006;244(5):663–7.

de Vries TW, van Roon EN. Low quality of reporting adverse drug reactions in paediatric randomised controlled trials. Arch Dis Child. 2010;95(12):1023–6.

Borg Debono V, Zhang S, Ye C, Paul J, Arya A, Hurlburt L, Murthy Y, Thabane L. The quality of reporting of RCTs used within a postoperative pain management meta-analysis, using the CONSORT statement. BMC Anesthesiol. 2012;12:13.

Kaiser KA, Cofield SS, Fontaine KR, Glasser SP, Thabane L, Chu R, Ambrale S, Dwary AD, Kumar A, Nayyar G, et al. Is funding source related to study reporting quality in obesity or nutrition randomized control trials in top-tier medical journals? Int J Obes. 2012;36(7):977–81.

Thomas O, Thabane L, Douketis J, Chu R, Westfall AO, Allison DB. Industry funding and the reporting quality of large long-term weight loss trials. Int J Obes. 2008;32(10):1531–6.

Khan NR, Saad H, Oravec CS, Rossi N, Nguyen V, Venable GT, Lillard JC, Patel P, Taylor DR, Vaughn BN, et al. A review of industry funding in randomized controlled trials published in the neurosurgical literature-the elephant in the room. Neurosurgery. 2018;83(5):890–7.

Hansen C, Lundh A, Rasmussen K, Hrobjartsson A. Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;8:Mr000047.

Kiehna EN, Starke RM, Pouratian N, Dumont AS. Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in neurosurgery. J Neurosurg. 2011;114(2):280–5.

Liu LQ, Morris PJ, Pengel LH. Compliance to the CONSORT statement of randomized controlled trials in solid organ transplantation: a 3-year overview. Transpl Int. 2013;26(3):300–6.

Bala MM, Akl EA, Sun X, Bassler D, Mertz D, Mejza F, Vandvik PO, Malaga G, Johnston BC, Dahm P, et al. Randomized trials published in higher vs. lower impact journals differ in design, conduct, and analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(3):286–95.

Lee SY, Teoh PJ, Camm CF, Agha RA. Compliance of randomized controlled trials in trauma surgery with the CONSORT statement. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;75(4):562–72.

Ziogas DC, Zintzaras E. Analysis of the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in acute and chronic myeloid leukemia, and myelodysplastic syndromes as governed by the CONSORT statement. Ann Epidemiol. 2009;19(7):494–500.

Alvarez F, Meyer N, Gourraud PA, Paul C. CONSORT adoption and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: a systematic analysis in two dermatology journals. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161(5):1159–65.

Mbuagbaw L, Thabane M, Vanniyasingam T, Borg Debono V, Kosa S, Zhang S, Ye C, Parpia S, Dennis BB, Thabane L. Improvement in the quality of abstracts in major clinical journals since CONSORT extension for abstracts: a systematic review. Contemporary Clin trials. 2014;38(2):245–50.

Thabane L, Chu R, Cuddy K, Douketis J. What is the quality of reporting in weight loss intervention studies? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Int J Obes. 2007;31(10):1554–9.

Murad MH, Wang Z. Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research. Evidence Based Med. 2017;22(4):139.

METRIC - MEthodological sTudy ReportIng Checklist: guidelines for reporting methodological studies in health research [ http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/#METRIC ]. Accessed 31 Aug 2020.

Jager KJ, Zoccali C, MacLeod A, Dekker FW. Confounding: what it is and how to deal with it. Kidney Int. 2008;73(3):256–60.

Parker SG, Halligan S, Erotocritou M, Wood CPJ, Boulton RW, Plumb AAO, Windsor ACJ, Mallett S. A systematic methodological review of non-randomised interventional studies of elective ventral hernia repair: clear definitions and a standardised minimum dataset are needed. Hernia. 2019.

Bouwmeester W, Zuithoff NPA, Mallett S, Geerlings MI, Vergouwe Y, Steyerberg EW, Altman DG, Moons KGM. Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2012;9(5):1–12.

Schiller P, Burchardi N, Niestroj M, Kieser M. Quality of reporting of clinical non-inferiority and equivalence randomised trials--update and extension. Trials. 2012;13:214.

Riado Minguez D, Kowalski M, Vallve Odena M, Longin Pontzen D, Jelicic Kadic A, Jeric M, Dosenovic S, Jakus D, Vrdoljak M, Poklepovic Pericic T, et al. Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews published in the highest ranking journals in the field of pain. Anesth Analg. 2017;125(4):1348–54.

Thabut G, Estellat C, Boutron I, Samama CM, Ravaud P. Methodological issues in trials assessing primary prophylaxis of venous thrombo-embolism. Eur Heart J. 2005;27(2):227–36.

Puljak L, Riva N, Parmelli E, González-Lorenzo M, Moja L, Pieper D. Data extraction methods: an analysis of internal reporting discrepancies in single manuscripts and practical advice. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;117:158–64.

Ritchie A, Seubert L, Clifford R, Perry D, Bond C. Do randomised controlled trials relevant to pharmacy meet best practice standards for quality conduct and reporting? A systematic review. Int J Pharm Pract. 2019.

Babic A, Vuka I, Saric F, Proloscic I, Slapnicar E, Cavar J, Pericic TP, Pieper D, Puljak L. Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019.

Tan A, Porcher R, Crequit P, Ravaud P, Dechartres A. Differences in treatment effect size between overall survival and progression-free survival in immunotherapy trials: a Meta-epidemiologic study of trials with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(15):1686–94.

Croitoru D, Huang Y, Kurdina A, Chan AW, Drucker AM. Quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals. Br J Dermatol. 2020;182(6):1469–76.

Khan MS, Ochani RK, Shaikh A, Vaduganathan M, Khan SU, Fatima K, Yamani N, Mandrola J, Doukky R, Krasuski RA: Assessing the Quality of Reporting of Harms in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High Impact Cardiovascular Journals. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes 2019.

Rosmarakis ES, Soteriades ES, Vergidis PI, Kasiakou SK, Falagas ME. From conference abstract to full paper: differences between data presented in conferences and journals. FASEB J. 2005;19(7):673–80.

Mueller M, D’Addario M, Egger M, Cevallos M, Dekkers O, Mugglin C, Scott P. Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):44.

Li G, Abbade LPF, Nwosu I, Jin Y, Leenus A, Maaz M, Wang M, Bhatt M, Zielinski L, Sanger N, et al. A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):181.

Krnic Martinic M, Pieper D, Glatt A, Puljak L. Definition of a systematic review used in overviews of systematic reviews, meta-epidemiological studies and textbooks. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):203.

Analytical study [ https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/analytical+study ]. Accessed 31 Aug 2020.

Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Pham B, Brehaut J, Moher D. Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(4):380–6 e381.

Schalken N, Rietbergen C. The reporting quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses in industrial and organizational psychology: a systematic review. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1395.

Ranker LR, Petersen JM, Fox MP. Awareness of and potential for dependent error in the observational epidemiologic literature: A review. Ann Epidemiol. 2019;36:15–9 e12.

Paquette M, Alotaibi AM, Nieuwlaat R, Santesso N, Mbuagbaw L. A meta-epidemiological study of subgroup analyses in cochrane systematic reviews of atrial fibrillation. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):241.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work did not receive any dedicated funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Daeria O. Lawson & Lehana Thabane

Biostatistics Unit/FSORC, 50 Charlton Avenue East, St Joseph’s Healthcare—Hamilton, 3rd Floor Martha Wing, Room H321, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 4A6, Canada

Lawrence Mbuagbaw & Lehana Thabane

Centre for the Development of Best Practices in Health, Yaoundé, Cameroon

Lawrence Mbuagbaw

Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

Livia Puljak

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health – Bloomington, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

David B. Allison

Departments of Paediatrics and Anaesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Lehana Thabane

Centre for Evaluation of Medicine, St. Joseph’s Healthcare-Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LM conceived the idea and drafted the outline and paper. DOL and LT commented on the idea and draft outline. LM, LP and DOL performed literature searches and data extraction. All authors (LM, DOL, LT, LP, DBA) reviewed several draft versions of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lawrence Mbuagbaw .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

DOL, DBA, LM, LP and LT are involved in the development of a reporting guideline for methodological studies.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mbuagbaw, L., Lawson, D.O., Puljak, L. et al. A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why. BMC Med Res Methodol 20 , 226 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01107-7

Download citation

Received : 27 May 2020

Accepted : 27 August 2020

Published : 07 September 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01107-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Methodological study
• Meta-epidemiology
• Research methods
• Research-on-research

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Machine Learning

Title: a methodology-oriented study of catastrophic forgetting in incremental deep neural networks.

Abstract: Human being and different species of animals having the skills to gather, transferring knowledge, processing, fine-tune and generating information throughout their lifetime. The ability of learning throughout their lifespan is referred as continuous learning which is using neurocognition mechanism. Consequently, in real world computational system of incremental learning autonomous agents also needs such continuous learning mechanism which provide retrieval of information and long-term memory consolidation. However, the main challenge in artificial intelligence is that the incremental learning of the autonomous agent when new data confronted. In such scenarios, the main concern is catastrophic forgetting(CF), i.e., while learning the sequentially, neural network underfits the old data when it confronted with new data. To tackle this CF problem many numerous studied have been proposed, however it is very difficult to compare their performance due to dissimilarity in their evaluation mechanism. Here we focus on the comparison of all algorithms which are having similar type of evaluation mechanism. Here we are comparing three types of incremental learning methods: (1) Exemplar based methods, (2) Memory based methods, and (3) Network based method. In this survey paper, methodology oriented study for catastrophic forgetting in incremental deep neural network is addressed. Furthermore, it contains the mathematical overview of impact-full methods which can be help researchers to deal with CF.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

Main Navigation

• Contact NeurIPS
• Code of Ethics
• Code of Conduct
• Create Profile
• Journal To Conference Track
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Proceedings
• Future Meetings
• Exhibitor Information
• Privacy Policy

NeurIPS 2024

Conference Dates: (In person) 9 December - 15 December, 2024

Homepage: https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2024/

Call For Papers 

Author notification: Sep 25, 2024

Camera-ready, poster, and video submission: Oct 30, 2024 AOE

Submit at: https://openreview.net/group?id=NeurIPS.cc/2024/Conference  

The site will start accepting submissions on Apr 22, 2024 

Subscribe to these and other dates on the 2024 dates page .

The Thirty-Eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2024) is an interdisciplinary conference that brings together researchers in machine learning, neuroscience, statistics, optimization, computer vision, natural language processing, life sciences, natural sciences, social sciences, and other adjacent fields. We invite submissions presenting new and original research on topics including but not limited to the following:

• Applications (e.g., vision, language, speech and audio, Creative AI)
• Deep learning (e.g., architectures, generative models, optimization for deep networks, foundation models, LLMs)
• Evaluation (e.g., methodology, meta studies, replicability and validity, human-in-the-loop)
• General machine learning (supervised, unsupervised, online, active, etc.)
• Infrastructure (e.g., libraries, improved implementation and scalability, distributed solutions)
• Machine learning for sciences (e.g. climate, health, life sciences, physics, social sciences)
• Neuroscience and cognitive science (e.g., neural coding, brain-computer interfaces)
• Optimization (e.g., convex and non-convex, stochastic, robust)
• Probabilistic methods (e.g., variational inference, causal inference, Gaussian processes)
• Reinforcement learning (e.g., decision and control, planning, hierarchical RL, robotics)
• Social and economic aspects of machine learning (e.g., fairness, interpretability, human-AI interaction, privacy, safety, strategic behavior)
• Theory (e.g., control theory, learning theory, algorithmic game theory)

Machine learning is a rapidly evolving field, and so we welcome interdisciplinary submissions that do not fit neatly into existing categories.

Authors are asked to confirm that their submissions accord with the NeurIPS code of conduct .

Formatting instructions:   All submissions must be in PDF format, and in a single PDF file include, in this order:

• The submitted paper
• Technical appendices that support the paper with additional proofs, derivations, or results 
• The NeurIPS paper checklist  

Other supplementary materials such as data and code can be uploaded as a ZIP file

The main text of a submitted paper is limited to nine content pages , including all figures and tables. Additional pages containing references don’t count as content pages. If your submission is accepted, you will be allowed an additional content page for the camera-ready version.

The main text and references may be followed by technical appendices, for which there is no page limit.

The maximum file size for a full submission, which includes technical appendices, is 50MB.

Authors are encouraged to submit a separate ZIP file that contains further supplementary material like data or source code, when applicable.

You must format your submission using the NeurIPS 2024 LaTeX style file which includes a “preprint” option for non-anonymous preprints posted online. Submissions that violate the NeurIPS style (e.g., by decreasing margins or font sizes) or page limits may be rejected without further review. Papers may be rejected without consideration of their merits if they fail to meet the submission requirements, as described in this document. 

Paper checklist: In order to improve the rigor and transparency of research submitted to and published at NeurIPS, authors are required to complete a paper checklist . The paper checklist is intended to help authors reflect on a wide variety of issues relating to responsible machine learning research, including reproducibility, transparency, research ethics, and societal impact. The checklist forms part of the paper submission, but does not count towards the page limit.

Please join the NeurIPS 2024 Checklist Assistant Study that will provide you with free verification of your checklist performed by an LLM here . Please see details in our  blog

Supplementary material: While all technical appendices should be included as part of the main paper submission PDF, authors may submit up to 100MB of supplementary material, such as data, or source code in a ZIP format. Supplementary material should be material created by the authors that directly supports the submission content. Like submissions, supplementary material must be anonymized. Looking at supplementary material is at the discretion of the reviewers.

We encourage authors to upload their code and data as part of their supplementary material in order to help reviewers assess the quality of the work. Check the policy as well as code submission guidelines and templates for further details.

Use of Large Language Models (LLMs): We welcome authors to use any tool that is suitable for preparing high-quality papers and research. However, we ask authors to keep in mind two important criteria. First, we expect papers to fully describe their methodology, and any tool that is important to that methodology, including the use of LLMs, should be described also. For example, authors should mention tools (including LLMs) that were used for data processing or filtering, visualization, facilitating or running experiments, and proving theorems. It may also be advisable to describe the use of LLMs in implementing the method (if this corresponds to an important, original, or non-standard component of the approach). Second, authors are responsible for the entire content of the paper, including all text and figures, so while authors are welcome to use any tool they wish for writing the paper, they must ensure that all text is correct and original.

Double-blind reviewing:   All submissions must be anonymized and may not contain any identifying information that may violate the double-blind reviewing policy.  This policy applies to any supplementary or linked material as well, including code.  If you are including links to any external material, it is your responsibility to guarantee anonymous browsing.  Please do not include acknowledgements at submission time. If you need to cite one of your own papers, you should do so with adequate anonymization to preserve double-blind reviewing.  For instance, write “In the previous work of Smith et al. [1]…” rather than “In our previous work [1]...”). If you need to cite one of your own papers that is in submission to NeurIPS and not available as a non-anonymous preprint, then include a copy of the cited anonymized submission in the supplementary material and write “Anonymous et al. [1] concurrently show...”). Any papers found to be violating this policy will be rejected.

OpenReview: We are using OpenReview to manage submissions. The reviews and author responses will not be public initially (but may be made public later, see below). As in previous years, submissions under review will be visible only to their assigned program committee. We will not be soliciting comments from the general public during the reviewing process. Anyone who plans to submit a paper as an author or a co-author will need to create (or update) their OpenReview profile by the full paper submission deadline. Your OpenReview profile can be edited by logging in and clicking on your name in https://openreview.net/ . This takes you to a URL "https://openreview.net/profile?id=~[Firstname]_[Lastname][n]" where the last part is your profile name, e.g., ~Wei_Zhang1. The OpenReview profiles must be up to date, with all publications by the authors, and their current affiliations. The easiest way to import publications is through DBLP but it is not required, see FAQ . Submissions without updated OpenReview profiles will be desk rejected. The information entered in the profile is critical for ensuring that conflicts of interest and reviewer matching are handled properly. Because of the rapid growth of NeurIPS, we request that all authors help with reviewing papers, if asked to do so. We need everyone’s help in maintaining the high scientific quality of NeurIPS.  

Please be aware that OpenReview has a moderation policy for newly created profiles: New profiles created without an institutional email will go through a moderation process that can take up to two weeks. New profiles created with an institutional email will be activated automatically.

Venue home page: https://openreview.net/group?id=NeurIPS.cc/2024/Conference

If you have any questions, please refer to the FAQ: https://openreview.net/faq

Ethics review: Reviewers and ACs may flag submissions for ethics review . Flagged submissions will be sent to an ethics review committee for comments. Comments from ethics reviewers will be considered by the primary reviewers and AC as part of their deliberation. They will also be visible to authors, who will have an opportunity to respond.  Ethics reviewers do not have the authority to reject papers, but in extreme cases papers may be rejected by the program chairs on ethical grounds, regardless of scientific quality or contribution.  

Preprints: The existence of non-anonymous preprints (on arXiv or other online repositories, personal websites, social media) will not result in rejection. If you choose to use the NeurIPS style for the preprint version, you must use the “preprint” option rather than the “final” option. Reviewers will be instructed not to actively look for such preprints, but encountering them will not constitute a conflict of interest. Authors may submit anonymized work to NeurIPS that is already available as a preprint (e.g., on arXiv) without citing it. Note that public versions of the submission should not say "Under review at NeurIPS" or similar.

Dual submissions: Submissions that are substantially similar to papers that the authors have previously published or submitted in parallel to other peer-reviewed venues with proceedings or journals may not be submitted to NeurIPS. Papers previously presented at workshops are permitted, so long as they did not appear in a conference proceedings (e.g., CVPRW proceedings), a journal or a book.  NeurIPS coordinates with other conferences to identify dual submissions.  The NeurIPS policy on dual submissions applies for the entire duration of the reviewing process.  Slicing contributions too thinly is discouraged.  The reviewing process will treat any other submission by an overlapping set of authors as prior work. If publishing one would render the other too incremental, both may be rejected.

Anti-collusion: NeurIPS does not tolerate any collusion whereby authors secretly cooperate with reviewers, ACs or SACs to obtain favorable reviews. 

Author responses:   Authors will have one week to view and respond to initial reviews. Author responses may not contain any identifying information that may violate the double-blind reviewing policy. Authors may not submit revisions of their paper or supplemental material, but may post their responses as a discussion in OpenReview. This is to reduce the burden on authors to have to revise their paper in a rush during the short rebuttal period.

After the initial response period, authors will be able to respond to any further reviewer/AC questions and comments by posting on the submission’s forum page. The program chairs reserve the right to solicit additional reviews after the initial author response period.  These reviews will become visible to the authors as they are added to OpenReview, and authors will have a chance to respond to them.

After the notification deadline, accepted and opted-in rejected papers will be made public and open for non-anonymous public commenting. Their anonymous reviews, meta-reviews, author responses and reviewer responses will also be made public. Authors of rejected papers will have two weeks after the notification deadline to opt in to make their deanonymized rejected papers public in OpenReview.  These papers are not counted as NeurIPS publications and will be shown as rejected in OpenReview.

Publication of accepted submissions:   Reviews, meta-reviews, and any discussion with the authors will be made public for accepted papers (but reviewer, area chair, and senior area chair identities will remain anonymous). Camera-ready papers will be due in advance of the conference. All camera-ready papers must include a funding disclosure . We strongly encourage accompanying code and data to be submitted with accepted papers when appropriate, as per the code submission policy . Authors will be allowed to make minor changes for a short period of time after the conference.

Contemporaneous Work: For the purpose of the reviewing process, papers that appeared online within two months of a submission will generally be considered "contemporaneous" in the sense that the submission will not be rejected on the basis of the comparison to contemporaneous work. Authors are still expected to cite and discuss contemporaneous work and perform empirical comparisons to the degree feasible. Any paper that influenced the submission is considered prior work and must be cited and discussed as such. Submissions that are very similar to contemporaneous work will undergo additional scrutiny to prevent cases of plagiarism and missing credit to prior work.

Plagiarism is prohibited by the NeurIPS Code of Conduct .

Other Tracks: Similarly to earlier years, we will host multiple tracks, such as datasets, competitions, tutorials as well as workshops, in addition to the main track for which this call for papers is intended. See the conference homepage for updates and calls for participation in these tracks. 

Experiments: As in past years, the program chairs will be measuring the quality and effectiveness of the review process via randomized controlled experiments. All experiments are independently reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Financial Aid: Each paper may designate up to one (1) NeurIPS.cc account email address of a corresponding student author who confirms that they would need the support to attend the conference, and agrees to volunteer if they get selected. To be considered for Financial the student will also need to fill out the Financial Aid application when it becomes available.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 15 May 2024

Detection of an Earth-sized exoplanet orbiting the nearby ultracool dwarf star SPECULOOS-3

• Michaël Gillon   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1462-7739 1 ,
• Peter P. Pedersen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5220-609X 2 , 3 ,
• Benjamin V. Rackham   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3627-1676 4 , 5 ,
• Georgina Dransfield 6 ,
• Elsa Ducrot   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7008-6888 1 , 7 ,
• Khalid Barkaoui   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1464-9276 1 , 4 , 8 ,
• Artem Y. Burdanov   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9892-2406 4 ,
• Urs Schroffenegger 9 ,
• Yilen Gómez Maqueo Chew   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7486-6726 10 ,
• Susan M. Lederer 11 ,
• Roi Alonso   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8462-8126 8 , 12 ,
• Adam J. Burgasser 13 ,
• Steve B. Howell 14 ,
• Norio Narita   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8511-2981 8 , 15 , 16 ,
• Julien de Wit   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2415-2191 4 ,
• Brice-Olivier Demory   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9355-5165 9 ,
• Didier Queloz 2 , 3 ,
• Amaury H. M. J. Triaud   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5510-8751 6 ,
• Laetitia Delrez   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6108-4808 1 , 17 , 18 ,
• Emmanuël Jehin 17 ,
• Matthew J. Hooton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0030-332X 2 ,
• Lionel J. Garcia 1 , 19 ,
• Clàudia Jano Muñoz 2 ,
• Catriona A. Murray   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8504-5862 20 ,
• Francisco J. Pozuelos   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1572-7707 21 ,
• Daniel Sebastian   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2214-9258 6 ,
• Mathilde Timmermans 1 ,
• Samantha J. Thompson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8039-194X 2 ,
• Sebastián Zúñiga-Fernández   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9350-830X 1 ,
• Jesús Aceituno   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0487-1105 21 , 22 ,
• Christian Aganze 13 , 23 ,
• Pedro J. Amado   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8012-3788 21 ,
• Thomas Baycroft   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3300-3449 6 ,
• Zouhair Benkhaldoun   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6285-9847 24 ,
• David Berardo 3 , 5 , 25 ,
• Emeline Bolmont   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5657-4503 26 , 27 ,
• Catherine A. Clark   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2361-5812 28 , 29 ,
• Yasmin T. Davis 6 ,
• Fatemeh Davoudi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1787-3444 1 ,
• Zoë L. de Beurs 4 ,
• Jerome P. de Leon 30 ,
• Masahiro Ikoma   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5658-5971 31 , 32 , 33 ,
• Kai Ikuta 30 ,
• Keisuke Isogai   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6480-3799 30 , 34 ,
• Izuru Fukuda 30 ,
• Akihiko Fukui   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4909-5763 8 , 15 ,
• Roman Gerasimov 13 , 35 ,
• Mourad Ghachoui 1 , 24 ,
• Maximilian N. Günther   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3164-9086 36 ,
• Samantha Hasler   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4894-193X 4 ,
• Yuya Hayashi 30 ,
• Kevin Heng 37 ,
• Renyu Hu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2215-8485 28 , 38 ,
• Taiki Kagetani 30 ,
• Yugo Kawai   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0488-6297 30 ,
• Kiyoe Kawauchi 39 ,
• Daniel Kitzmann   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4269-3311 9 ,
• Daniel D. B. Koll   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9076-6901 40 ,
• Monika Lendl   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9699-1459 26 ,
• John H. Livingston   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4881-3620 16 , 32 , 41 ,
• Xintong Lyu   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0004-9766-036X 40 ,
• Erik A. Meier Valdés   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2160-8782 9 ,
• Mayuko Mori   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1368-6593 30 ,
• James J. McCormac 42 ,
• Felipe Murgas   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9087-1245 8 , 11 ,
• Prajwal Niraula 4 ,
• Enric Pallé   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0987-1593 7 , 12 ,
• Ilse Plauchu-Frayn 43 ,
• Rafael Rebolo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3767-7085 8 ,
• Laurence Sabin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0242-0044 43 ,
• Yannick Schackey 3 ,
• Nicole Schanche 44 , 45 ,
• Franck Selsis   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9619-5356 46 ,
• Alfredo Sota   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9404-6952 21 ,
• Manu Stalport 1 , 17 ,
• Matthew R. Standing 6 , 47 ,
• Keivan G. Stassun   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3481-9052 48 ,
• Motohide Tamura   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6510-0681 16 , 41 , 49 ,
• Yuka Terada 42 , 43 ,
• Christopher A. Theissen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9807-5435 13 ,
• Martin Turbet   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2260-9856 46 , 50 ,
• Valérie Van Grootel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2144-4316 17 ,
• Roberto Varas   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6946-0342 21 ,
• Noriharu Watanabe 30 &
• Francis Zong Lang 9  

Nature Astronomy ( 2024 ) Cite this article

400 Altmetric

Metrics details

Located at the bottom of the main sequence, ultracool dwarf stars are widespread in the solar neighbourhood. Nevertheless, their extremely low luminosity has left their planetary population largely unexplored, and only one of them, TRAPPIST-1, has so far been found to host a transiting planetary system. In this context, we present the SPECULOOS project’s detection of an Earth-sized planet in a 17 h orbit around an ultracool dwarf of M6.5 spectral type located 16.8 pc away. The planet’s high irradiation (16 times that of Earth) combined with the infrared luminosity and Jupiter-like size of its host star make it one of the most promising rocky exoplanet targets for detailed emission spectroscopy characterization with JWST. Indeed, our sensitivity study shows that just ten secondary eclipse observations with the Mid-InfraRed Instrument/Low-Resolution Spectrometer on board JWST should provide strong constraints on its atmospheric composition and/or surface mineralogy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Transit detection of the long-period volatile-rich super-Earth ν2 Lupi d with CHEOPS

A compact multi-planet system around a bright nearby star from the Dispersed Matter Planet Project

Imaging low-mass planets within the habitable zone of α Centauri

Data availability.

All the data (Kast, SpeX and CARMENES spectra; SPECULOOS, Saint-EX, T150, MuSCAT3, GTC/HiPERCAM, UKIRT/WFCAM and TESS light curves) used in this work are publicly available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10821723 (ref.  115 ). Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The PROSE code used to reduce the SPECULOOS, TRAPPIST, and MuSCAT3 data is available at https://github.com/lgrcia/prose . The TRAFIT code used to analyse the light curves is a Fortran 2003 code that can be obtained from the first author on reasonable request. The HiPERCAM pipeline is available at https://cygnus.astro.warwick.ac.uk/phsaap/hipercam/docs/html/ . The SHERLOCK package used to search for planets in the TESS data is publicly available at https://github.com/franpoz/SHERLOCK . The detection limits in the TESS data were computed using the MATRIX package, which is publicly available at https://github.com/PlanetHunters/tkmatrix . The code used to create Extended Data Fig. 1 is available at https://github.com/jpdeleon/epoch . The Generic Planetary Climate Model code (and documentation on how to use the model) used in this work can be downloaded from the SVN repository at https://svn.lmd.jussieu.fr/Planeto/trunk/LMDZ.GENERIC/ . The Donuts code is available at https://github.com/jmccormac01/Donuts . More information and documentation are available at http://www-planets.lmd.jussieu.fr . The kastredux code used to reduce the Kast optical spectrum is available at https://github.com/aburgasser/kastredux .

Kirkpatrick, J. D., Henry, T. J. & Irwin, M. J. Ultra-cool M dwarfs discovered by QSO surveys. I: the APM objects. Astron. J. 113 , 1421–1428 (1997).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Dieterich, S. B. et al. The solar neighborhood. XXXII. The hydrogen burning limit. Astron. J. 147 , 94 (2014).

Gillon, M. Searching for red worlds. Nat. Astron. 2 , 344 (2018).

Burdanov, A., Delrez, L., Gillon, M. & Jehin, E. in Handbook of Exoplanets (eds Deeg, H. J. & Belmonte, J. A.) 1007–1023 (Springer, 2018).

Delrez, L. et al. SPECULOOS: a network of robotic telescopes to hunt for terrestrial planets around the nearest ultracool dwarfs. In Proc. SPIE 10700, Ground-Based and Airborne Telescopes VII (eds Marshall, H. K. & Spyromilio, J.) 107001I (SPIE, 2018).

Sebastian, D. et al. SPECULOOS: ultracool dwarf transit survey. Target list and strategy. Astron. Astrophys. 645 , A100 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Jehin, E. et al. The SPECULOOS Southern Observatory begins its hunt for rocky planets. Messenger 174 , 2–7 (2018).

ADS   Google Scholar  

Burdanov, A. Y. et al. SPECULOOS Northern Observatory: searching for red worlds in the northern skies. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 134 , 105001 (2022).

Demory, B. O. et al. A super-Earth and a sub-Neptune orbiting the bright, quiet M3 dwarf TOI-1266. Astron. Astrophys. 642 , A49 (2020).

Gillon, M., Jehin, E., Fumel, A., Magain, P. & Queloz, D. TRAPPIST-UCDTS: a prototype search for habitable planets transiting ultra-cool stars. EPJ Web Conf. 47 , 03001 (2013).

Gillon, M. et al. Temperate Earth-sized planets transiting a nearby ultracool dwarf star. Nature 533 , 221–224 (2016).

Gillon, M. et al. Seven temperate terrestrial planets around the nearby ultracool dwarf star TRAPPIST-1. Nature 542 , 456–460 (2017).

Delrez, L. et al. Two temperate super-Earths transiting a nearby late-type M dwarf. Astron. Astrophys. 667 , A59 (2022).

Stassun, K. G., Corsaro, E., Pepper, J. A. & Gaudi, B. S. Empirical accurate masses and radii of single stars with TESS and Gaia. Astron. J. 155 , 22 (2018).

Birky, J., Hogg, D. W., Mann, A. W. & Burgasser, A. Temperatures and metallicities of M dwarfs in the APOGEE Survey. Astrophys. J. 892 , 31 (2020).

Stelzer, B., Marino, A., Micela, G., López-Santiago, J. & Liefke, C. The UV and X-ray activity of the M dwarfs within 10 pc of the Sun. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 431 , 2063–2079 (2013).

Lopez, E. D., Fortney, J. J. & Miller, N. How thermal evolution and mass-loss sculpt populations of super-Earths and sub-Neptunes: application to the Kepler-11 system and beyond. Astrophys. J. 761 , 59 (2012).

Owen, J. E. & Mohanty, S. Habitability of terrestrial-mass planets in the HZ of M Dwarfs - I. H/He-dominated atmospheres. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 459 , 4088–4108 (2016).

Owen, J. E. & Wu, Y. Kepler planets: a tale of evaporation. Astrophys. J. 775 , 105 (2013).

Owen, J. E. & Wu, Y. The evaporation valley in the Kepler planets. Astrophys. J. 847 , 29 (2017).

Fulton, B. J. et al. The California-Kepler Survey. III. A gap in the radius distribution of small planets. Astron. J. 154 , 109 (2017).

Luque, R. & Pallé, E. Density, not radius, separates rocky and water-rich small planets orbiting M dwarf stars. Science 377 , 1211–1214 (2022).

Petigura, E. A. et al. The California-Kepler Survey. X. The radius gap as a function of stellar mass, metallicity, and age. Astron. J. 163 , 179 (2022).

Akeson, R. L. et al. The NASA Exoplanet Archive: data and tools for exoplanet research. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125 , 989 (2013).

Izidoro, A. et al. Breaking the chains: hot super-Earth systems from migration and disruption of compact resonant chains. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 470 , 1750–1770 (2017).

Izidoro, A. et al. Formation of planetary systems by pebble accretion and migration. Hot super-Earth systems from breaking compact resonant chains. Astron. Astrophys. 650 , A152 (2021).

Goldberg, M. & Batygin, K. Architectures of compact super-Earth systems shaped by instabilities. Astron. J. 163 , 201 (2022).

Forget, F. & Leconte, J. Possible climates on terrestrial exoplanets. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372 , 20130084 (2014).

Zahnle, K. J. & Catling, D. C. The cosmic shoreline: the evidence that escape determines which planets have atmospheres, and what this may mean for Proxima Centauri B. Astrophys. J. 843 , 122 (2017).

Grenfell, J. L. et al. Possible atmospheric diversity of low mass exoplanets - some central aspects. Space Sci. Rev. 216 , 98 (2020).

Lim, O. et al. Atmospheric reconnaissance of TRAPPIST-1 b with JWST/NIRISS: evidence for strong stellar contamination in the transmission spectra. Astrophys. J. Lett. 955 , L22 (2023).

Greene, T. P. et al. Thermal emission from the Earth-sized exoplanet TRAPPIST-1 b using JWST. Nature 618 , 39–42 (2023).

Zieba, S. et al. No thick carbon dioxide atmosphere on the rocky exoplanet TRAPPIST-1 c. Nature 620 , 746–749 (2023).

Mansfield, M. et al. Identifying atmospheres on rocky exoplanets through inferred high albedo. Astrophys. J. 886 , 141 (2019).

Kempton, E. M.-R. et al. A framework for prioritizing the TESS planetary candidates most amenable to atmospheric characterization. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 130 , 114401 (2018).

Rackham, B. V., Apai, D. & Giampapa, M. S. The transit light source effect: false spectral features and incorrect densities for M-dwarf transiting planets. Astrophys. J. 853 , 122 (2018).

May, E. M. et al. Double trouble: two transits of the super-Earth GJ 1132 b observed with JWST NIRSpec G395H. Astrophys. J. Lett. 959 , L9 (2023).

Hapke, B. Space weathering from Mercury to the asteroid belt. J. Geophys. Res. 106 , 10039–10074 (2001).

Lépine, S. & Shara, M. M. A catalog of northern stars with annual proper motions larger than 0.15” (LSPM-NORTH Catalog). Astron. J. 129 , 1483–1522 (2005).

Dittmann, J. A., Irwin, J. M., Charbonneau, D. & Berta-Thompson, Z. K. Trigonometric parallaxes for 1507 nearby mid-to-late M dwarfs. Astrophys. J. 784 , 156 (2014).

Gilhool, S. H. et al. The rotation of M dwarfs observed by the Apache Point Galactic Evolution Experiment. Astron. J. 155 , 38 (2018).

Jönsson, H. et al. APOGEE data and spectral analysis from SDSS Data Release 16: seven years of observations including first results from APOGEE-South. Astron. J. 160 , 120 (2020).

Gaia Collaboration. Gaia Data Release 2. Summary of the contents and survey properties. Astron. Astrophys. 616 , A1 (2018).

Scholz, R. D. New ultracool dwarf neighbours within 20 pc from Gaia DR2. Astron. Astrophys. 637 , A45 (2020).

Rayner, J. T. et al. SpeX: a medium-resolution 0.8-5.5 micron spectrograph and imager for the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 115 , 362–382 (2003).

Cushing, M. C., Vacca, W. D. & Rayner, J. T. Spextool: a spectral extraction package for SpeX, a 0.8-5.5 micron cross-dispersed spectrograph. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 116 , 362–376 (2004).

Burgasser, A. J. & Splat Development Team. The SpeX Prism Library Analysis Toolkit (SPLAT): a data curation model. In 3rd International Workshop on Spectral Stellar Libraries , Astronomical Society of India Conference (eds Coelho, P. et al.) 7–12 (Astronomical Society of India, 2017).

Cushing, M. C., Rayner, J. T. & Vacca, W. D. An infrared spectroscopic sequence of M, L, and T dwarfs. Astron. J. 623 , 1115–1140 (2005).

Rayner, J. T., Cushing, M. C. & Vacca, W. D. The Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF) spectral library: cool stars. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 185 , 289–432 (2009).

Kirkpatrick, J. D. et al. Discoveries from a near-infrared proper motion survey using multi-epoch two micron All-Sky Survey data. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 190 , 100–146 (2010).

Mann, A. W. et al. Prospecting in ultracool dwarfs: measuring the metallicities of mid- and late-M dwarfs. Astron. J. 147 , 160 (2014).

Miller, J. S. & Stone, R. P. S. The Kast Double Spectrograph Technical Report No. 66 (Univ. California Lick Observatory, 1994).

Kesseli, A. Y. et al. An empirical template library of stellar spectra for a wide range of spectral classes, luminosity classes, and metallicities using SDSS BOSS spectra. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 230 , 16 (2017).

Gizis, J. E. M-subdwarfs: spectroscopic classification and the metallicity scale. Astron. J. 113 , 806–822 (1997).

Martín, E. L. et al. Spectroscopic classification of late-M and L field dwarfs. Astron. J. 118 , 2466–2482 (1999).

Lépine, S., Rich, R. M. & Shara, M. M. Spectroscopy of new high proper motion stars in the northern sky. I. New nearby stars, new high-velocity stars, and an enhanced classification scheme for M dwarfs. Astron. J. 125 , 1598–1622 (2003).

Lépine, S. et al. A spectroscopic catalog of the brightest (J < 9) M dwarfs in the northern sky. Astron. J. 145 , 102 (2013).

Mann, A. W., Brewer, J. M., Gaidos, E., Lépine, S. & Hilton, E. J. Prospecting in late-type dwarfs: a calibration of infrared and visible spectroscopic metallicities of late K and M dwarfs spanning 1.5 dex. Astron. J. 145 , 52 (2013).

Stassun, K. G. & Torres, G. Parallax systematics and photocenter motions of benchmark eclipsing binaries in Gaia EDR3. Astrophys. J. Lett. 907 , L33 (2021).

Stassun, K. G. & Torres, G. Eclipsing binaries as benchmarks for trigonometric parallaxes in the Gaia era. Astron. J. 152 , 180 (2016).

Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A. & Gaudi, B. S. Accurate empirical radii and masses of planets and their host stars with Gaia parallaxes. Astron. J. 153 , 136 (2017).

Husser, T. O. et al. A new extensive library of PHOENIX stellar atmospheres and synthetic spectra. Astron. Astrophys. 553 , A6 (2013).

Filippazzo, J. C. et al. Fundamental parameters and spectral energy distributions of young and field age objects with masses spanning the stellar to planetary regime. Astrophys. J. 810 , 158 (2015).

Mann, A. W. et al. How to constrain your M dwarf. II. The mass-luminosity-metallicity relation from 0.075 to 0.70 solar masses. Astrophys. J. 871 , 63 (2019).

Czesla, S. et al. PyA: Python astronomy-related packages. Astrophysics Source Code Library ascl:1906.010 (2019).

Johnson, D. R. H. & Soderblom, D. R. Calculating galactic space velocities and their uncertainties, with an application to the Ursa Major group. Astron. J. 93 , 864 (1987).

Gaia Collaboration. Gaia Early Data Release 3. Summary of the contents and survey properties. Astron. Astrophys. 649 , A1 (2021).

Coşkunoğlu, B. et al. Local stellar kinematics from RAVE data - I. Local standard of rest. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 412 , 1237–1245 (2011).

Li, C. & Zhao, G. The evolution of the galactic thick disk with the LAMOST Survey. Astrophys. J. 850 , 25 (2017).

Buder, S. et al. The GALAH+ survey: third data release. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 506 , 150–201 (2021).

Fernandes, C. S. et al. Evolutionary models for ultracool dwarfs. Astrophys. J. 879 , 94 (2019).

Lightkurve Collaboration et al. Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python. Astrophysics Source Code Library ascl:1812.013 (2018).

Narita, N. et al. MuSCAT2: four-color simultaneous camera for the 1.52-m Telescopio Carlos Sánchez. J. Astron. Telesc. Instrum. Syst. 5 , 015001 (2019).

Narita, N. et al. MuSCAT3: a 4-color simultaneous camera for the 2m Faulkes Telescope North. In Proc. Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII (eds Evans, C. J. et al.) 114475K (SPIE, 2020).

McCully, C. et al. in Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy V Conference Series Vol. 10707 (eds Guzman, J. C. & Ibsen, J.) 107070K (SPIE, 2018).

Garcia, L. J. et al. PROSE: a PYTHON framework for modular astronomical images processing. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 509 , 4817–4828 (2022).

Gillon, M. et al. TRAPPIST: a robotic telescope dedicated to the study of planetary systems. EPJ Web Conf. 11 , 06002 (2011).

Jehin, E. et al. TRAPPIST: transiting planets and planetesimals small telescope. Messenger 145 , 2–6 (2011).

Barkaoui, K. et al. Discovery of three new transiting hot Jupiters: WASP-161 b, WASP-163 b, and WASP-170 b. Astron. J. 157 , 43 (2019).

Collins, K. A., Kielkopf, J. F., Stassun, K. G. & Hessman, F. V. AstroImageJ: image processing and photometric extraction for ultra-precise astronomical light curves. Astron. J. 153 , 77 (2017).

Dhillon, V. S. et al. HiPERCAM: a quintuple-beam, high-speed optical imager on the 10.4-m Gran Telescopio Canarias. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 507 , 350–366 (2021).

Stetson, P. B. DAOPHOT: a computer program for crowded-field stellar photometry. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 99 , 191 (1987).

Quirrenbach, A. et al. The CARMENES M-dwarf planet survey. In Proc. SPIE 11447, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII (eds Evans, C. J. et al.) 114473C (SPIE, 2020).

Caballero, J. A. et al. in Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VI Conference Series Vol. 9910 (eds Peck, A. B. et al.) 99100E (SPIE, 2016).

Zechmeister, M. et al. Spectrum radial velocity analyser (SERVAL). High-precision radial velocities and two alternative spectral indicators. Astron. Astrophys. 609 , A12 (2018).

Scott, N. J. et al. Twin high-resolution, high-speed imagers for the Gemini telescopes: instrument description and science verification results. Front. Astron. Space Sci. 8 , 138 (2021).

Howell, S. B. & Furlan, E. Speckle interferometric observations with the Gemini 8-m telescopes: signal-to-noise calculations and observational results. Front. Astron. Space Sci. 9 , 871163 (2022).

Howell, S. B. et al. Speckle imaging excludes low-mass companions orbiting the exoplanet host star TRAPPIST-1. Astrophys. J. Lett. 829 , L2 (2016).

Howell, S. B., Everett, M. E., Sherry, W., Horch, E. & Ciardi, D. R. Speckle camera observations for the NASA Kepler Mission follow-up program. Astron. J. 142 , 19 (2011).

Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F. & Chabrier, G. New evolutionary models for pre-main sequence and main sequence low-mass stars down to the hydrogen-burning limit. Astron. Astrophys. 577 , A42 (2015).

Skrutskie, M. F. et al. The Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS). Astron. J. 131 , 1163–1183 (2006).

Gillon, M. et al. The Spitzer search for the transits of HARPS low-mass planets. I. No transit for the super-Earth HD 40307b. Astron. Astrophys. 518 , A25 (2010).

Gillon, M. et al. The TRAPPIST survey of southern transiting planets. I. Thirty eclipses of the ultra-short period planet WASP-43 b. Astron. Astrophys. 542 , A4 (2012).

Gillon, M. et al. Search for a habitable terrestrial planet transiting the nearby red dwarf GJ 1214. Astron. Astrophys. 563 , A21 (2014).

Mandel, K. & Agol, E. Analytic light curves for planetary transit searches. Astrophys. J. Lett. 580 , L171–L175 (2002).

Schwarz, G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Stat. 6 , 461–464 (1978).

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Matsumura, S., Takeda, G. & Rasio, F. A. On the origins of eccentric close-in planets. Astrophys. J. Lett. 686 , L29 (2008).

Claret, A., Hauschildt, P. H. & Witte, S. New limb-darkening coefficients for PHOENIX/1D model atmospheres. I. Calculations for 1500 K ≤ T e f f ≤ 4800 K Kepler, CoRot, Spitzer, uvby, UBVRIJHK, Sloan, and 2MASS photometric systems. Astron. Astrophys. 546 , A14 (2012).

Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat. Sci. 7 , 457–472 (1992).

Gillon, M. et al. An educated search for transiting habitable planets: targetting M dwarfs with known transiting planets. Astron. Astrophys. 525 , A32 (2011).

Hippke, M. & Heller, R. Optimized transit detection algorithm to search for periodic transits of small planets. Astron. Astrophys. 623 , A39 (2019).

Pozuelos, F. J. et al. GJ 273: on the formation, dynamical evolution, and habitability of a planetary system hosted by an M dwarf at 3.75 parsec. Astron. Astrophys. 641 , A23 (2020).

Dévora-Pajares, M. & Pozuelos, F. J. MATRIX: multi-phase transits recovery from injected exoplanets toolkit. Astrophysics Source Code Library ascl:2309.007 (2023).

Seifahrt, A. et al. On-sky commissioning of MAROON-X: a new precision radial velocity spectrograph for Gemini North. In Proc. SPIE 11447, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII (eds Evans, C. J. et al.) 114471F (SPIE, 2020).

Hatzes, A. P., Cochran, W. D. & Endl, M. in Planets in Binary Star Systems Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 366 (ed Haghighipour, N.) 51–76 (Astrophysics and Space Science Library, 2010).

Rackham, B. V., Apai, D. & Giampapa, M. S. The transit light source effect. II. The impact of stellar heterogeneity on transmission spectra of planets orbiting broadly Sun-like stars. Astron. J. 157 , 96 (2019).

Rackham, B. V. et al. The effect of stellar contamination on low-resolution transmission spectroscopy: needs identified by NASA’s Exoplanet Exploration Program Study Analysis Group 21. RAS Techniq. Instrum. 2 , 148–206 (2023).

Leconte, J. et al. 3D climate modeling of close-in land planets: circulation patterns, climate moist bistability, and habitability. Astron. Astrophys. 554 , A69 (2013).

Turbet, M. et al. Water condensation zones around main sequence stars. Astron. Astrophys. 679 , A126 (2023).

Hu, R., Ehlmann, B. L. & Seager, S. Theoretical spectra of terrestrial exoplanet surfaces. Astrophys. J. 752 , 7 (2012).

Lyu, X. et al. Super-Earth LHS3844b is tidally locked. Astrophys. J. 964 , 152 (2024).

Batalha, N. E. et al. PandExo: a community tool for transiting exoplanet science with JWST & HST. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 129 , 064501 (2017).

Bouwman, J. et al. Spectroscopic time series performance of the mid-infrared instrument on the JWST. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 135 , 038002 (2023).

Whittaker, E. A. et al. The detectability of rocky planet surface and atmosphere composition with the JWST: the case of LHS 3844b. Astron. J. 164 , 258 (2022).

Gillon, M. Detection of an Earth-sized exoplanet orbiting the nearby ultracool dwarf star SPECULOOS-3. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10821723 (2024).

NASA Exoplanet Archive (California Institute of Technology, accessed 16 October 2023); https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu

Download references

Acknowledgements

The ULiege’s contribution to SPECULOOS has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) (grant agreement number 336480/SPECULOOS), the Balzan Prize and Francqui Foundations, the Belgian Scientific Research Foundation (F.R.S.-FNRS; grant number T.0109.20), the University of Liege and the ARC grant for Concerted Research Actions financed by the Wallonia-Brussels Federation. M. Gillon is an F.R.S-FNRS Research Director. His contribution to this work was done in the framework of the PORTAL project funded by the Federal Public Planning Service Science Policy (BELSPO) within its BRAIN-be: Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks programme. E.J. is an F.R.S-FNRS Senior Research Associate. V.V.G. is an F.R.S-FNRS Research Associate. The postdoctoral fellowship of K.B. is funded by F.R.S.-FNRS grant number T.0109.20 and by the Francqui Foundation. This publication benefits from the support of the French Community of Belgium in the context of the FRIA Doctoral Grant awarded to M. Timmermans. This work is supported by a grant from the Simons Foundation (PI D.Q., grant number 327127). J.d.W. and MIT gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Heising-Simons Foundation, C. Masson and L. Masson and P. A. Gilman for Artemis, the first telescope of the SPECULOOS network situated in Tenerife, Spain. B.-O.D. acknowledges support from the Centre for Space and Habitability of the University of Bern and the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI) under contract number MB22.00046. Part of this work received support from the National Centre for Competence in Research PlanetS, supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). The Birmingham contribution research is in part funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement number 803193/BEBOP), from the MERAC foundation and from the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC; grant numbers ST/S00193X/1 and ST/W000385/1). We thank the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office (BELSPO) for the provision of financial support in the framework of the PRODEX Programme of the European Space Agency (ESA) under contract number 4000142531. B.V.R. thanks the Heising-Simons Foundation for Support. B.V.R. is a 51 Pegasi b Fellow. This material is based upon work supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under agreement number 80NSSC21K0593 for the programme ‘Alien Earths’. The results reported herein benefited from collaborations and/or information exchange within NASA’s Nexus for Exoplanet System Science (NExSS) research coordination network sponsored by NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. M. Turbet acknowledges support from the Tremplin 2022 programme of the Faculty of Science and Engineering of Sorbonne University. M. Turbet thanks the Generic PCM team for the teamwork development and improvement of the model and acknowledges support from the High-Performance Computing (HPC) resources of Centre Informatique National de l’Enseignement Supérieur (CINES) under the allocation numbers A0100110391, A0120110391 and A0140110391 made by Grand Équipement National de Calcul Intensif (GENCI). M.R.S acknowledges support from the European Space Agency as an ESA Research Fellow. E.A.M.V. acknowledges support from the Centre for Space and Habitability (CSH). This work has been carried out within the framework of the National Centre of Competence in Research PlanetS supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation under grant numbers 51NF40_182901 and 51NF40_205606. This work is based upon observations carried out at the Observatorio Astronómico Nacional on the Sierra de San Pedro Mártir (OAN-SPM), Baja California, México. SAINT-EX observations and team were supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant numbers PP00P2-163967 and PP00P2-190080), the Centre for Space and Habitability (CSH) of the University of Bern and the National Centre for Competence in Research PlanetS, supported by the SNSF. Y.G.M.C. acknowledges support from UNAM PAPIIT-IG101224. Based on observations made with the GTC telescope, in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, under Director’s Discretionary Time. Some of the observations in this paper made use of the High-Resolution Imaging instrument ‘Alopeke and were obtained under Gemini LLP proposal number GN-2023B-DD-101. ‘Alopeke was funded by the NASA Exoplanet Exploration Program and built at the NASA Ames Research Center by S.B.H., N. Scott, E. P. Horch and E. Quigley. ‘Alopeke was mounted on the Gemini North telescope of the international Gemini Observatory, a programme of the NSF’s OIR Lab, which is managed by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United States), National Research Council (Canada), Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (Chile), Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (Argentina), Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações (Brazil) and Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (Republic of Korea). F.J.P., P.J.A., A.S., R.V., and J.A. acknowledge financial support from the Severo Ochoa grant CEX2021-001131-S funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation grant MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033. This work benefits from observations made at the Sierra Nevada Observatory, operated by the Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (IAA-CSIC). D.K. and X.L. acknowledge financial support from NSFC grant number 42250410318. F.S. acknowledges support from CNES, Programme National de Planétologie (PNP) and the Investments for the Future programme IdEx, Université de Bordeaux/RRI ORIGINS. This research was carried out in part at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NM0018D0004). This work is partly supported by MEXT/JSPS KAKENHI grant numbers JP15H02063, JP18H05439, JP18H05442, JP21K13955, JP21K20376 and JP22000005 and JST CREST grant number JPMJCR1761. This paper is based on observations made with the MuSCAT3 instrument, developed by the Astrobiology Center and under financial supports by JSPS KAKENHI (grant number JP18H05439) and JST PRESTO (grant number JPMJPR1775), at Faulkes Telescope North on Maui, HI, operated by the Las Cumbres Observatory. Observations made with the Wide-Field Camera (WFCam) on the UKIRT telescope were granted through Director’s Discretionary Time. UKIRT is owned by the University of Hawaii (UH) and operated by the UH Institute for Astronomy. This research has made use of the NASA Exoplanet Archive, which is operated by the California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the Exoplanet Exploration Program. The Digitized Sky Surveys were produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute under US Government grant number NAG W-2166. The images of these surveys are based on photographic data obtained using the Oschin Schmidt Telescope on Palomar Mountain and the UK Schmidt Telescope. The plates were processed into the present compressed digital form with the permission of these institutions. The National Geographic Society–Palomar Observatory Sky Atlas (POSS-I) was made by the California Institute of Technology with grants from the National Geographic Society. The Second Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-II) was made by the California Institute of Technology with funds from the National Science Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the Sloan Foundation, the Samuel Oschin Foundation and the Eastman Kodak Corporation. The Oschin Schmidt Telescope is operated by the California Institute of Technology and Palomar Observatory. The UK Schmidt Telescope was operated by the Royal Observatory Edinburgh, with funding from the UK Science and Engineering Research Council (later the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council) until June 1988, and thereafter by the Anglo-Australian Observatory. The blue plates of the southern Sky Atlas and its Equatorial Extension (together known as the SERC-J), as well as the Equatorial Red (ER) and the Second Epoch [red] Survey (SES), were all taken with the UK Schmidt Telescope. Supplemental funding for sky-survey work at the STScI is provided by the European Southern Observatory.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Astrobiology Research Unit, Université de Liège, Liège, Belgium

Michaël Gillon, Elsa Ducrot, Khalid Barkaoui, Laetitia Delrez, Lionel J. Garcia, Mathilde Timmermans, Sebastián Zúñiga-Fernández, Fatemeh Davoudi, Mourad Ghachoui & Manu Stalport

Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, UK

Peter P. Pedersen, Didier Queloz, Matthew J. Hooton, Clàudia Jano Muñoz & Samantha J. Thompson

Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Peter P. Pedersen, Didier Queloz, David Berardo & Yannick Schackey

Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

Benjamin V. Rackham, Khalid Barkaoui, Artem Y. Burdanov, Julien de Wit, Zoë L. de Beurs, Samantha Hasler & Prajwal Niraula

Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

Benjamin V. Rackham & David Berardo

School of Physics & Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Georgina Dransfield, Amaury H. M. J. Triaud, Daniel Sebastian, Thomas Baycroft, Yasmin T. Davis & Matthew R. Standing

LESIA, Observatoire de Paris, CNRS, Université Paris Diderot, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Meudon, France

Elsa Ducrot & Enric Pallé

Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC), La Laguna, Spain

Khalid Barkaoui, Roi Alonso, Norio Narita, Akihiko Fukui, Felipe Murgas & Rafael Rebolo

Center for Space and Habitability, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Urs Schroffenegger, Brice-Olivier Demory, Daniel Kitzmann, Erik A. Meier Valdés & Francis Zong Lang

Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico

Yilen Gómez Maqueo Chew

NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, USA

Susan M. Lederer & Felipe Murgas

Departamento de Astrofísica, Universidad de La Laguna, La Laguna, Spain

Roi Alonso & Enric Pallé

Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Adam J. Burgasser, Christian Aganze, Roman Gerasimov & Christopher A. Theissen

NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA

Steve B. Howell

Komaba Institute for Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

Norio Narita & Akihiko Fukui

Astrobiology Center, Tokyo, Japan

Norio Narita, John H. Livingston & Motohide Tamura

Space Sciences, Technologies and Astrophysics Research (STAR) Institute, Université de Liège, Liège, Belgium

Laetitia Delrez, Emmanuël Jehin, Manu Stalport & Valérie Van Grootel

Institute of Astronomy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Laetitia Delrez

Center for Computational Astrophysics, Flatiron Institute, New York, NY, USA

Lionel J. Garcia

Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA

Catriona A. Murray

Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (IAA-CSIC), Granada, Spain

Francisco J. Pozuelos, Jesús Aceituno, Pedro J. Amado, Alfredo Sota & Roberto Varas

Centro Astronómico Hispano en Andalucia, Gérgal, Spain

Jesús Aceituno

Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Christian Aganze

Oukaimeden Observatory, High Energy Physics and Astrophysics Laboratory, Faculty of Sciences Semlalia, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech, Morocco

Zouhair Benkhaldoun & Mourad Ghachoui

Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

David Berardo

Département d’astronomie de l’Université de Genève, Sauverny, Switzerland

Emeline Bolmont & Monika Lendl

Centre sur la Vie dans l’Univers, Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland

Emeline Bolmont

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA

Catherine A. Clark & Renyu Hu

NASA Exoplanet Science Institute, IPAC, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA

Catherine A. Clark

Department of Multi-Disciplinary Sciences, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

Jerome P. de Leon, Kai Ikuta, Keisuke Isogai, Izuru Fukuda, Yuya Hayashi, Taiki Kagetani, Yugo Kawai, Mayuko Mori & Noriharu Watanabe

Division of Science, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Tokyo, Japan

Masahiro Ikoma

Astronomical Science Program, Graduate University for Advanced Studies, Tokyo, Japan

Masahiro Ikoma & John H. Livingston

Department of Earth and Planetary Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

Okayama Observatory, Kyoto University, Asakuchi, Japan

Keisuke Isogai

Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA

Roman Gerasimov

European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC), European Space Agency (ESA), Noordwijk, the Netherlands

Maximilian N. Günther

Faculty of Physics, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany

Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA

Department of Physical Sciences, Ritsumeikan University, Kusatsu, Japan

Kiyoe Kawauchi

Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China

Daniel D. B. Koll & Xintong Lyu

National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Tokyo, Japan

John H. Livingston & Motohide Tamura

Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

James J. McCormac & Yuka Terada

Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Unidad Académica en Ensenada, Ensenada, Mexico

Ilse Plauchu-Frayn, Laurence Sabin & Yuka Terada

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA

Nicole Schanche

Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Laboratoire d’astrophysique de Bordeaux, Université Bordeaux, CNRS, Pessac, France

Franck Selsis & Martin Turbet

European Space Astronomy Centre (ESAC), European Space Agency (ESA), Madrid, Spain

Matthew R. Standing

Department of Physics and Astronomy, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

Keivan G. Stassun

Department of Astronomy, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

Motohide Tamura

Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique/IPSL, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Université PSL, Ecole Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Paris, France

Martin Turbet

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

M. Gillon initiated the SPECULOOS project, performed the analyses of the photometry described in this paper and wrote a large part of the paper. M. Gillon, B.-O.D., J.d.W., D.Q. and A.H.M.J.T. led the SPECULOOS project and manage its funding, its organization and its operations. P.P.P. developed and maintains the SPECULOOS database and its web interface, a key element in the discovery of the planet. B.V.R. and C.A.T. acquired, reduced and analysed the SpeX spectra, and B.V.R. analysed the TESS data with J.d.W. E.D. managed the scheduling of the SPECULOOS observations. A.Y.B. managed operations of the SPECULOOS-North facility. S.Z.-F. managed the SPECULOOS-South Observatory facilities. M.J.H. managed the SPECULOOS data analysis pipeline. This role was previously in the hands of C.A.M. (who developed the pipeline). M. Gillon, A.H.M.J.T., B.-O.D., G.D., Y.T.D., M.R.S., T.B., M.J.H., S.J.T., C.J.M., E.D., K.B., P.P.P., A.Y.B., L.D., M. Timmermans, F.J.P., S.Z.-F., E.J., L.J.G., C.A.M., D.B., F.D., S.H., Y.S., Z.L.d.B. and P.N. operated the SPECULOOS telescopes. E.D., G.D., L.D., D.S., M. Timmermans, F.J.P. and S.Z.-F. examined the SPECULOOS light curves on a daily basis to search for any structure that could be related to the transit of an exoplanet, and identified the first transits of the planet. L.J.G. contributed to the data management and maintenance of the SPECULOOS different observatories. M.N.G. contributed to the search for SPECULOOS candidates in the TESS data, and provided comments on the paper. M.S. provided comments on the paper. K.G.S. performed the spectral energy distribution analysis. S.M.L. led the UKIRT observation proposal, and managed the scheduling of the UKIRT observations. A.J.B. and R.G. acquired, reduced and analysed the Kast optical spectrum. C.A. led the kinematic and metallicity age analysis. S.B.H. obtained the Gemini high-resolution speckle observations, reduced the data and provided their analysis. S.B.H. also provided comments on the paper. Z.B. managed the Oukaimeden Observatory hosting TRAPPIST-North. M. Ghachoui scheduled and performed the TRAPPIST-North observations. K.B. provided SPECULOOS, Saint-EX, TRAPPIST-North and MuSCAT3 data reduction. N.N. obtained MuSCAT3 Director’s Discretionary Time and performed all MuSCAT3 observations. J.P.d.L. reduced data from MuSCAT2 and part of the data from MuSCAT3. N.N., J.P.d.L., A.F., I.F., Y.H., K. Ikuta, K. Isogai, M.I., K.K., T.K., Y.K., J.H.L., M.M., M. Tamura, Y.T. and N.W. provided MuSCAT3 GTO for this project. N.N. and E.P. provided MuSCAT2 observations for this project. F.M. performed MuSCAT2 observations. C.A.C. provided the ‘Alopeke data reduction. R.A. and R.R. wrote the GTC/HiPERCAM observation proposal, and R.A. reduced the data. F.J.P. searched for extra planets in the TESS data and established detection limits. F.J.P. also scheduled, reduced and analysed the T150 photometric data, and provided the CARMENES data. P.J.A., J.A. and R.V. wrote the CARMENES proposal and managed the schedule of observations and data reduction and analysis. D.S. assessed the potential to measure the planets mass using high-resolution spectroscopy. A.S. operated the T150 telescope. L.D. and E.D. assessed the potential of the planet for emission spectroscopy with JWST and performed the corresponding PandExo simulations. R.H., D.D.B.K. and X.L. provided model emission spectra for various surface compositions. M. Turbet and F.S. performed 3D numerical climate model simulations of SPECULOOS-3 b for two plausible atmospheres, and provided associated emission spectra. E.B. provided guidance and comments on the paper. S.J.T. helped in the design and commissioning of the SPECULOOS-South Observatory and is a member of the operations team. F.S. worked on synthetic observations with JWST. J.J.M. implemented a custom autoguiding routine for each SPECULOOS node based on his open source Donuts science frame autoguiding algorithm, with the goal of minimizing star drift and systematic noise in the observations. M.J.H. mainlined and developed the pipeline that automatically processes all SPECULOOS data at the University of Cambridge and provided an initial fit to the SPECULOOS and TESS transit light curves. V.V.G. ran stellar evolution modelling to derive host star properties. B.-O.D., U.S., Y.G.M.C., D.K., E.A.M.V., I.P.-F., L.S., N.S. and F.Z.L. operated the SAINT-EX telescope, including scheduling observations, nightly operations, data processing and maintenance of the facility. K.H. and M. L. contributed to the funding of SAINT-EX.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michaël Gillon .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Astronomy thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended data fig. 1 evolution of the position of speculoos-3..

Left: Archival image of the target taken in 1951 using a photographic plate on the Palomar Schmidt Telescope as part of the National Geographic Society - Palomar Observatory Sky Atlas (POSS-I) survey. Right: MuSCAT3 z s band image taken in 2023. The 7 decade-long baseline allowed the target move more than half a degree showing a clear line-of-sight at the past (red circle) and current (blue circle) positions of the target.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Speckle imaging of SPECULOOS-3.

Result from speckle imaging with the ’Alopeke instrument mounted on the 8-m Gemini-North telescope, on Maunea Kea, Hawai’i. The inset on the top right shows the final image produced by our analysis, which is summarized by the two curves of the main figure. These curves show the sensitivity in two bands (blue = 562 nm and red = 832 nm). The observations reveal there are no companions with a brightness greater than 5 to 6 magnitudes at distances above 0.1” from SPECULOOS-3A, which corresponds to a physical distance of approximately 1.7 AU.

Source data

Extended data fig. 3 spectral energy distribution of speculoos-3..

Red symbols represent the observed photometric measurements, where the horizontal bars represent the effective width of the bandpass, and the vertical bars the 1 −  σ error bars on the measurements. Blue symbols are the model fluxes from the best-fit PHOENIX atmosphere model (black). Overlaid on the model are the absolute flux-calibrated spectrophotometric observations from SpeX (gray swathe) and Kast (yellow).

Extended Data Fig. 4 Effect of space weathering on the emission spectrum of an airless SPECULOOS-3b.

Mid-infrared eclipse depths increase with stronger weathering of an ultramafic surface (see Methods for details).

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 and Tables 1–3.

Source Data Fig. 1

Processed data.

Source Data Fig. 2

Source data fig. 3, source data fig. 4.

Archival data from the NASA Exoplanet archive.

Source Data Fig. 5

Simulated data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2

Source data extended data fig. 3.

Processed data and model.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gillon, M., Pedersen, P.P., Rackham, B.V. et al. Detection of an Earth-sized exoplanet orbiting the nearby ultracool dwarf star SPECULOOS-3. Nat Astron (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-024-02271-2

Download citation

Received : 14 February 2024

Accepted : 10 April 2024

Published : 15 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-024-02271-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Home Toggle navigation FR Toggle Search Search the site Search About us About us Head office Regional offices History Archives Background materials Photos and videos Accessibility Contact us Corporate governance Board of Directors Governing Council and Senior Management Governance documents Educational resources The Economy, Plain and Simple Explainers Financial education resources Careers Take a central role at the Bank of Canada with our current opportunities and scholarships.

Digital Payments in Firm Networks: Theory of Adoption and Quantum Algorithm

We build a network formation game of firms with trade flows to study the adoption and usage of a new digital currency as an alternative to correspondent banking. We document endogenous heterogeneity and inefficiency in adoption outcomes and explain why higher usage may correspond to lower adoption. Next, we frame the model as a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem and apply it to data. Method-wise, QUBO presents an extension to the potential function approach and makes broadly defined network games applicable and empirically feasible, as we demonstrate with a quantum computer.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34989/swp-2024-17

We use cookies to help us keep improving this website.