Nature is reporting that it is now going to expand the methods section in print and online versions of its papers. This will also include a 300 word summary of the methods in the print version as well as a full length methods section in the online version which is not a supplemental methods document.
Nature also uses the news piece to remind us that the author formated version of the paper can be submitted to pubmed central (6 months after publication) (well only for NIH supported pubs though – see comments exchange on Jonathan’s blog) and that can include the full length methods.
This seems to be all around a GOOD THING. I’ve always heard complaining about how the glossy publications skimp on actually providing enough evidence to reproduce the results (“telegraphic tradition” in Naturespeak). The best thing is if this means methods are actually peer-reviewed. I don’t really know that they are. You can download the supplemental materials but it isn’t clear to me that someone has actually reviewed it and made sure that a) methods are clearly explained and indicates a reproduceable protocol, b) is typographically proofread.