If an experiment is any good, the process needs to be replicated. That requires some details on the methods researchers used.
But, uh, how detailed, exactly?
Here are some classics:
Water stress was applied to the plants until we felt we had achieved an odd sort of victory over them #overlyhonestmethods
— Hope Jahren (@HopeJahren) January 8, 2013
We used jargon instead of plain English to prove that a decade of grad school and postdoc made us smart. #overlyhonestmethods
— Ethan Perlstein (@eperlste) January 8, 2013
— Holly Menninger (@DrHolly) January 8, 2013
The instrument was inoperable during this period because somebody hit one of the switches with their arse. #overlyhonestmethods
— Will Morgan (@willtmorgan) January 8, 2013
"Our results were non-significant at p>0.05, but they're humdingers at p>0.1" :) #overlyhonestmethods
— Richard L. Vance (@RLombardVance) January 8, 2013
You can download our code from the URL supplied. Good luck downloading the only postdoc who can get it to run, though #overlyhonestmethods
— Ian Holmes (@ianholmes) January 8, 2013
A detailed sedimentary log was carried out at this locality, because there was a comfy rock to sit down on beside it #overlyhonestmethods
— Christopher Jennings (@chrsphr) January 8, 2013
Scientists are overrated, they are humans with all the failings of every other human, don't turn them into the gods they're not.
"Experiment was repeated until we had three statistically significant similar results and could discard the outliers"
How do you think they got the 'evidence' that man is warming up everything?
I can't pick a favorite - they're all funny as he11! True, true ...