The manuscript is not comprehensive in its presentation of methods and results
When Robert Boyle was performing experiments with the air pump in the 17th Century, his discoveries were communicated to other “natural philosophers”4 using live demonstration. Where that was not possible, scientific findings and discourse were generally communicated through personal letters. When the scientific paper became popular, its purpose was to give readers the impression that they were there with the author in witnessing the experiment. Detail was important. Today, we are often taught that the purpose of a report is not just to communicate the findings, but also to provide the reader with the information needed to repeat the study. In my experience as an editor (and reviewer), I have reviewed several manuscripts that inadequately describe the methods of study or omit important information required to adequately interpret the presented results, much less repeat the study. It may be unclear as to how participants were selected, how the data acquired, the experimental procedures (e.g. randomization and blinding), and the validity and reliability of the approach to measurement. Statistical analyses are often poorly described. It is not enough to say which test were used – one must also state what is being compared and how. In addition, important metrics related to the quality of the analyses are often not reported (e.g. what are the assumptions of the statistical tests used and were those assumptions met). Likewise, the results might not include important information (e.g. characteristics of study participants, number who dropped out, statistical data, including standard errors and confidence intervals, etc.). I suspect that much of the under-reporting on methods and results is due to concern about maximum word count. If so, it is recommended that the author prioritize the justification for the study, and the methods and results over discussion of findings and editorializing.