[tgb]

I actually find the forced structure of most non-math journals to be pretty terrible for readability. Why are results and methods forced to be separate? It means you have to play the 'connect the dots' game of figuring out which parts of the methods refer to which part of the results. This is obvious to the writer but incredibly challenging in some circumstances for a less-informed reader. Math papers do not have such forced separation and have clearly numbered claims and proofs.

An example is a paper with several mouse experiments. In results it'll often have a single section saying that mice were raised such and such under conditions A or B. They were treated with X or Y and samples were collected after certain times. But was Y treated on A or B mice? From results its clear that X was done on both but no mention for Y. I guess A is more the default and they'd have specified B if that were the case, so probably A.

[dmarchand90]

I think them being separated makes sense if you think how it's really targeted towards in-field experts. Usually if you know the field it's very clear which results come from which methods.

Not saying the status quo is optimal of course just why it is the way it is now and probably won't change soon