good evening,

I may have understood that for instance in my area, a publication that follows a methodology of experimentation, such as with

- introductory remarks,

-followed by the description of an experiment,

-credible description of materials and methods,

-Discussion and

-conclusions

...

(no credible scientific journal would accept an article without these premises!);

On my behalf, as a reader, I always drive down to count the bibliography cited.

The bibliographic fundaments of scientific experimentation is, to me, the important landmark of credibility.

(Hope this was useful!)

Dear Marcel,

could you help me to understand your question?

Dear Hanno,

I added some precisions in the additional information to the question. If not clear, just give your interpretations.

good evening,

I may have understood that for instance in my area, a publication that follows a methodology of experimentation, such as with

- introductory remarks,

-followed by the description of an experiment,

-credible description of materials and methods,

-Discussion and

-conclusions

...

(no credible scientific journal would accept an article without these premises!);

On my behalf, as a reader, I always drive down to count the bibliography cited.

The bibliographic fundaments of scientific experimentation is, to me, the important landmark of credibility.

(Hope this was useful!)

Dear Maria,

If I understand your remarks correctly, if the bibliography of a publication does not focus on methods or journals focusing on methods, it is a publication dealing with a study that uses a method to advance knowledge, not a study only aimed to present a new method? 

Dear Marcel,

Yes! Certainly. But even if you are presenting a new method, shouldn't you have the honesty to present your bibliographic fundaments of your theory? 

(this would also immediately lead us back to the discussion of fraude in science . In modern times, and with worldwide divulgation of ideas, it is very common that scientists from different parts of the world have the same theories, simultaneously.  It has often occurred to me that others come to what I considered to be my own conclusions, just because they fundament their reasoning in much the same bibliographic readings. )

So, if you would kindly add to my previous listing, Scientific honesty and open-mindedness are also important landmarks of methodology-based publication.

I think the difference lay between a paper describing a very specific experiment and its results, essentially a thesis based paper, and that of a book that gives a large and wide overview of known theories and conjectures. The former, the thesis paper, is bound by the content of the paper itself, hence, it is focused and purposeful. The latter, the book, is so wide in its scope that it is hardly possible to adhere to any one "thesis".

Successful realization of any task assigned requires methodical approach.

I think a methodology based study is one where  methods are being established, validated, and improved; and reliabilities are obtained for a research instrument.  It may also be a study where the  best  items to be included in questionnaire are determined.   Or where construct validity is improved.  Then, teachers like me come along and translate and use the instrument, without having to validate it.  I just need to do a reliability analysis for my sample, and I proceed to do a research based on the improved methodology, and report this.  (The paper by Glynn et al. (2011) is a methodology based research; and so is the image.)

Glynn, S. M., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Science Motivation Questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1159-1176

  A methodology-based publication or research indicates the use of rigorous, systematic, and objective methodologies to obtain reliable and valid results and conclusions. Thus, a non-methodology based publication indicates not using any of any rigorous, systematic, and objective methodologies.

Dear Marcel,

Methods to improve knowledge are within research methodology.

Methodology is the systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied to a field of study. It comprises the theoretical analysis of the body of methods and principles associated with a branch of knowledge. Typically, it encompasses concepts such as paradigm, theoretical model, phases and quantitative or qualitative techniques.

A methodology does not set out to provide solutions - it is, therefore, not the same thing as a method. Instead, it offers the theoretical underpinning for understanding which method, set of methods or so called “best practices” can be applied to specific case, for example, to calculate a specific result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology

María:  As you say, simultaneous inventions/theories are very likely with modern-day's dissemination of knowledge.  What are the odds of simultaneous discoveries between two people not knowing each other and no knowledge or access to the bibliography of the other!  It happened on several occasions in the 18th century.  For example, Francisco José de Caldas in Colombia published in 1810 a theory of evolutionary change in the species due to environmental changes decades before Darwin.  This same scientist invented a method of measuring the altitude of mountains at the same time a scientist in France did.  Who do you think got the credit for the discovery?  There are other examples but I´m getting far afield of Marcel's question.  Apologies.

Regards, John

To me detailed description is a must if the methodology is new and creative. if not then regular and normal description with reference citation would be sufficient.

All publications are written using a (mentally-based, education-based) method/methodology despite the fact that some publications have a methods section whereas others have not? Therefore, all publications are method-based or methodology-based, or not?

Example for discussion:

A language used for writing could be described as a tool/ instrument/ method for communication.

Examples include theory-based, movement-based, school-based, etc. So all publications can either be method-based or methodology-based or both, dear Marcel!

A methodology-based publication depicts a specific experiment that the researcher has carried out and that has been written in a specific context. The scope of such research  is narrower than that of the one based on non-methodology. The latter tends to give an overview of the issues in a manner things are discussed in books rather than research journals.  Of course, both have their utilities depending upon what one is looking for while making use of the research concerned.

Every paper it is supposed to follow a methodology, the problem is how strict and demanding is that methodology. Perhaps the 'technical' papers should be more constrained than others.

If a human method (e.g. wheel) would be studied as an human extended phenotype, like building architecture, and the results published, will the publication be a method-based publication, a methodology-based publication, a human science-based publication, a behavior-based publication, a psychology-based publication,  an evolutionary-based publications, etc  ?

I think every paper or book follows a 'methodology', but what we really mean is that it must be coherent. As for methodological paper, the scientific paper discusses the method employed to arrive at a conclusion, the coherence of the paper is not necessarily satisfied, for I have read many a scientific paper that is completely incoherent. 

So, it depends on the 'objective function' of our free will and thus we cannot agree about the methodology, coherence and other virtues of a paper.

Practically the difference between empirical research and theoretical work. But in my work, it is very difficult to separate the two because they are constantly interacting with each other for it being both mathematically efficient robust and practically meaningful.