Page 18 of 31.
A methods section is formulaic by design, which is exactly why an AI-drafted one reads as machine-written. Here is what to leave alone, what is actually yours to vary, and how to tell the two apart section by section.
Most guides say keep it short and clear, which is true and tells you nothing about what to put in those few words. Here is what a research title actually has to carry, worked through four weak titles rebuilt strong.
Colour and organize and analyse can each be correct and still be wrong together in the same document. Four recurring patterns explain most of what separates British and American spelling, a short list of words breaks the patterns outright, and one rule decides whether a submission passes: consistency with whatever convention the target actually specifies.
When a source has no named author, the title steps into that role and the entry is alphabetized by its first significant word. The same reference list usually raises a handful of adjacent problems at the same time: multiple works by one author, a tie on both author and year, an organisation as author, and the Mac-versus-Mc question, each with its own small, specific rule.
Smith (2020) argues. Jones (2021) suggests. Lee (2022) found. The same sentence shape three times in a row is the fastest tell in a literature review, and fixing it is a structure problem, not a vocabulary one, with citations sitting in the middle of it.
Turnitin publishes no acceptable similarity percentage, and institutions set their own guidance instead. This post explains what actually drives a high or low score, why quoted material and reference lists inflate it without anything being wrong, and how to read the match breakdown behind the number rather than the number itself.