Your manuscript’s limitations paragraph: Can you be too honest?

Nobody enjoys discussing their flaws, but we all have them, your study included. When you design a study, you will have to make choices that inevitably weaken your ability to definitively answer your research question. These choices are usually because of limited resources: time, money, access to the population of interest, etc. For example, you don’t have 25 years to follow a cohort of people; you didn’t have grant funding to run the fancy analysis, so you used something less expensive; it’s really difficult to recruit the people you are interested in. Reviewers and readers expect you to acknowledge some of your study’s limitations, but you don’t need to list them all.

Here is an example of a poorly written limitations paragraph: “This study suffers from several limitations. The small sample size, and the fact the participants were mostly students, likely biases the results. In addition, the study was cross-sectional, which is a limitation. Future research should address these limitations.” The writing is vague – how were the results biased? How do the limitations matter – is the sample too small to adequately test the research question?

Can You Be Too Honest?

Sort of. The goal isn't to hide your limitations; it's to frame them accurately. There's a difference between acknowledging a genuine weakness and apologizing for a deliberate, defensible choice. Here's an example:

If you're working with a public health agency to evaluate a nutrition intervention, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) may not be ethical. Do you really want to put people who are actively seeking help into a placebo group? Of course not. While it does weaken your study design, it's a real-life situation. Writing "the lack of a randomized controlled design is a limitation of this study" frames a sound ethical choice as a weakness. A reviewer can be persuaded to agree with this choice.

DO THIS: Provide your rationale for the study design in your methods section: "A quasi-experimental design was employed as randomizing participants into a placebo group is inconsistent with the service delivery philosophy of Big City Health Department." In your limitations section, you can acknowledge the weaker design but also indicate the field supports this approach. Try something like, "A randomized controlled design was not feasible given that participants were actively seeking dietary support through a public health program. A quasi-experimental design, which is consistent with established approaches in community-based nutrition intervention research (citations), was used instead." You're not ignoring the issue, but you are able to justify your decision.

Let's develop this idea a bit further. Consider that an effective way to approach your limitations paragraph is to identify some of the more important weaknesses and, if possible, explain how you addressed the weakness or why you don’t think the limitation made much of a difference in outcomes. Here are two examples of how to address specific limitations:

“Subjective measures of sleep quality were used, which can suffer from social desirability bias; however, the surveys have been validated in our study population, while the cross-over design minimizes bias. Confirmation with objective measures is needed to corroborate subjective findings.” Here we explain what kind of bias might be present but also indicate that our design likely mitigated that effect somewhat. We also suggest how the study design could be improved in the future.

 “The ability to generalize results to other racial groups is limited, as there were only 22 Black participants; however, post hoc testing confirmed the sample size was sufficient for the statistical analysis conducted.” The limitation was noted, but the author explains why or how the effect is likely minimal.

Here is a stronger limitations paragraph: “There are important limitations that affect the interpretation of these findings. First, the sample consisted primarily of undergraduate students from a single Midwestern university, which may limit the generalizability of the outcomes to other age groups or institutions. Second, the cross-sectional design does not allow for causal determination. Third, all measures relied on self-reported data, which may have introduced response biases such as social desirability. Despite these limitations, this study provides evidence for associations between financial stress and diet quality within this population. Employing longitudinal designs and more diverse samples will be able to confirm the observed relationships.”

Be Specific About Future Directions

The dreaded "Future research should address these limitations" appears in almost every paper ever published. I'm guilty of using it, too, but it's a throwaway line used to cover up superficial thinking. You need to include a future directions statement, but you should be specific about what you're recommending and why.

DON'T DO THIS: "Future research should address these limitations."

DO THIS: "Future studies should use longitudinal designs to establish the direction of the relationship between financial stress and diet quality. Recruiting from multiple institutions across different geographic regions would also improve the generalizability of these findings beyond a single Midwestern university sample."

Now your future directions statement is meaningful and helps to advance the field. It tells the reader what specific design changes would strengthen the evidence, and it connects directly back to the limitations you just described.

In summary, present your limitations as boundaries rather than mistakes. Your limitations help to put your findings in context. There is no perfect study! If you need help with writing your limitations section – or any other part of your manuscript – reach out here.

Back to the Blog