Methods sections often lack critical details needed to reproduce an experiment. Methodological shortcut citations, in which authors cite previous papers instead of fully describing the method, may contribute to this problem. This meta-research study systematically examine shortcut citation use in neuroscience, biology and psychiatry. First, we examined papers to determine why authors citation resources in the methods section and to assess how frequently shortcut citations were used. Common reasons for using citations in the methods section included explaining how something was done by citing a previous resource that used the method (methodological shortcut citation), giving credit or specifying what was used (who or what citation), and providing context or a justification (why citation). We then reviewed 15 papers to determine what happens when readers follow shortcut citations to find detailed methodsl. While shortcut citations can be used effectively, problems encountered included difficulty identifying or accessing cited resources, missing or insufficient descriptions of the cited method, and chains of shortcut citations. Finally, we examined journal policies. Fewer than one quarter of journals had policies specifying how authors should report or describe modifications of previously described methods. We propose that methodological shortcut citations should meet three criteria; cited resources should describe a method very similar to the authors’ method, provide enough detail to allow others to implement the method, and be open access. Preprint DOI: 10.1101/2022.08.08.503174