This study investigated whether basic details of the research process are mentioned in social science research articles. Five hundred empirical articles were sampled from the Social Sciences Citation Index. The frequency of omitted details was mixed. For central essential details, omission rates were: 0% for research purpose, 2% for data collection method, 8% for sample size, 20% for data analysis method, and 48% for sampling strategy. The analysis found that 56% of articles were missing one or more of these five details. For more peripheral details, omission rates were: 36% for limitations, 55% for ethical considerations, and 94% for foundational philosophy. Prevalence rates were varied when compared across different disciplines and between qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Possible causes for these findings include the use of secondary data, the view that certain details are not essential, and traditions in ethnographic writing. Those involved in academic publishing are invited to reflect on the basic details that are essential for their specialism and how reporting standards are enforced.

中文翻译：

---

社会科学研究论文中多久提到一次研究过程的基本细节？

这项研究调查了社会科学研究文章中是否提到了研究过程的基本细节。从《社会科学引文索引》中抽取了500篇实证文章。省略细节的频率是混杂的。对于核心的基本细节，遗漏率为：研究目的0％，数据收集方法2％，样本量8％，数据分析方法20％和抽样策略48％。分析发现，有56％的文章缺少这五个细节中的一个或多个。对于更多外围细节，遗漏率是：限制为36％，出于伦理考虑为55％，基础哲学为94％。在不同学科之间以及定性，定量和混合方法方法之间进行比较时，患病率各不相同。这些发现的可能原因包括使用辅助数据，认为某些细节不是必不可少的观点以及民族志书写的传统。欢迎那些参与学术出版的人员思考其专业知识必不可少的基本细节以及如何执行报告标准。