Hello Riyad - are you referring to literature reviews? If not, sorry, and please disregard this answer, but if yes, I would say that you should include methods and their reasoning. It is important for readers to know how you selected the literature and why works may be excluded from the literature that you are considering. Provide a explanation (or even a sample) of your search criteria, your inclusion/exclusion, how decisions were made, and any tools you used to measure study quality (such as the PEDro, STROBE, CASP, or AAN Classifications).

Hope this is what you are looking for - best of luck!

I think theoretical or conceptual framework is enough for a literary articles.  This type of publication is based on the review of literature. Therefore, the theoretical framework has to be strong and concepts have to be well-knitted to make a logical flow. There is no requirement of methodology. You can follow some articles and dependin on the style or guideline of a journal. 

Thank you, Laura, for your answer. In fact, I don't mean the literature review that is included in the majority of articles. I mean when anyone writes a research article using literary criticism to analyze short stories, plays, poems or novels. The literary theories used in these papers frame the discussion and analysis, and most of these papers (i.e written to analyze literary texts) do not include methods.

I agree with you, Rajib. 

Riyad

If the the manuscript aims at providing a scientific analysis then you should provide the methods uses and clearly define the concepts and the criteria used to construct your argument. Without sistematization and theory there is no scientific reflection. 

If the work being produced aims to be a mere entertainment text, then method desription is not needed.

Without methods and theory there is no science, regardless of the area of knowledge in question. As you might know some people believe that literature studies fall-out of science. That is not my opinion, thus my believe for the need for a method details

Even when the topic is a literary one and, therefore, it is much more central to convey your approach in theoretical terms, it can be useful (say in a footnote) to cover how you searched for or found the literature that is directly relevant and gives context to your review. This is especially the case if you are using sources not usually considered in relation to the main text and to explain why you concentrate on certain sources and secondary works more or exclusively rather than others.

If you just mention the theoretical framework, the risk is that this gesture can be reduced to a kind of concept dropping showing your ambition to be in the mood of the time. Though this is often done, it is not very credible. Adding a short methodological reflection, bridging between theory and interpretation, would show how your reading of a literary work is modified through a theoretical reference. It would also show why your theory suits your text. The art is to be short enough with your methodological reflection and to leave the main emphasis on literary analysis and criticism. A preconcept which is too strong, harms the literary work of understanding. It would reduce the researcher to a mechanical analyzing device, instead of him remaining a literary and sensitive (beyond theories) reader of the text.

I think Yes, but it depends on the type of topic, journal as well.