W2B. Tenses in the Method Section
1. Summary
1.1 The Role of the Method Section
The Method section of a systematic literature review describes in precise detail how you conducted your research. Its purpose is twofold: it allows readers to evaluate the rigor and validity of your study, and it provides enough information for another researcher to replicate your procedure and arrive at comparable results. Replicability is a cornerstone of scientific credibility.
A well-written Method section typically covers:
- The databases searched
- The search string(s) used
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
- The screening procedure (how papers were selected or rejected)
- The number of results obtained at each stage
1.2 Tenses in the Method Section
The Method section describes actions that have already been completed. You searched databases, applied criteria, and screened papers before you began writing. For this reason, the dominant tense in the Method section is the Past Simple.
| Action type | Tense | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Describing completed search actions | Past Simple | “The search was conducted in ScienceDirect.” |
| Explaining criteria applied | Past Simple | “Studies were excluded if they were not peer-reviewed.” |
| Stating the number of results retrieved | Past Simple | “The initial search yielded 920 results.” |
Past Simple tells the reader: “This is what we did.” It signals that the described procedures are finished facts, not ongoing activities.
1.3 Voice in the Method Section
Alongside tense, voice is a key grammatical choice in Method sections. Academic scientific writing frequently uses the passive voice rather than the active voice.
- Active voice: “We searched ScienceDirect using the following string…”
- Passive voice: “ScienceDirect was searched using the following string…”
The passive voice is preferred because it:
- Shifts focus from the researcher to the action or procedure (making the text more objective)
- Maintains a formal, impersonal tone appropriate for scientific reporting
- Emphasizes what was done rather than who did it
However, the active voice is not wrong—some journals and style guides now accept or even prefer it. The key is consistency throughout your Method section.
1.4 Structure of the Method Section
A Method section in a systematic literature review can be organized in several ways:
- No subsections: A single continuous prose description of the method (appropriate for simpler, single-database searches)
- Two subsections: For example, “Search Strategy” and “Screening Procedure”
- Multiple subsections: For complex, multi-stage methods (e.g., “Database Selection,” “Search String Construction,” “Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria,” “Screening,” “Data Extraction”)
The choice depends on the complexity of your method. Use subsections when the method is detailed enough that prose alone would become difficult to follow.
Regardless of structure, the ordering of elements generally follows the chronological sequence of your research process: first you designed the search, then you ran it, then you applied criteria, then you screened.
1.5 Peer Review of the Method Section
The primary test of a Method section is replicability. When peer-reviewing a Method section, ask:
- Could I follow these steps and reproduce the search?
- Are the databases named explicitly?
- Is the search string provided in full?
- Are inclusion and exclusion criteria stated clearly and completely?
- Are the numbers of results at each stage reported?
If any step is ambiguous—if you would need to ask the author for clarification to follow the procedure—then the Method section needs revision at that point. A peer reviewer who cannot replicate the search from the description alone is giving the author the most useful feedback possible.