Methods sections provide an overview of a study’s design and procedures; yet they often lack details needed to reproduce an experiment. Authors often replace detailed descriptions with “shortcut citations” that refer readers to previous articles that used similar methods. This poster presents the results of a three-part meta-research study examining the use of methodological shortcut citations in biology, neuroscience and psychiatry. First, we conducted a case series to identify problems that may occur when readers consult shortcut citations to find more details about study methods. Problems include inadequate descriptions of the method used, additional shortcut citations, or papers that are inaccessible due to paywalls. Second, we examined the reasons why papers are cited in the methods section and determined whether each paper was a “possible” or “probable” shortcut. Common reasons for citations in the methods section included providing details of a method, providing context, giving credit or specifying what was used, and citing sources of data or materials. Most papers included shortcut citations, whereas few deposited protocols. Finally, we examined policies for journals listed in Journal Citation Reports for all three fields. Many journals encouraged authors to use methodological citation shortcuts or briefly summarize methods; few journals recommended using methods repositories.