Abstract

Most journals require authors to provide sufficient experimental detail in their publications to enable other scientists to reproduce the studies presented. However, my personal experience when reading papers in my research field suggests that many details that could be considered important are commonly overlooked. I analysed the work published during 2013 within the field of arbuscular mycorrhizal ecology, assessing whether 15 important details from 5 fundamental criteria were reported about (1) the experimental treatment, (2) the abiotic growing conditions, (3) the soil nutrient concentrations, (4) the duration of the study and (5) a description of the methodology employed to collect the data. Only 26% of the 171 publications analysed reported all 5 of the most important criteria. The need of including more details when reporting research is discussed and recommendations about which details should be included are provided.