The central tenet of scientific research is the rigorous application of the scientific method to experimental design, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of results. In order to confer validity to a hypothesis, experimental details must be transparent and results must be reproducible. Failure to achieve this minimum indicates a deficiency in rationale, design, and/or execution, necessitating further experimental refinement or hypothesis reformulation. More importantly, rigorous application of the scientific method advances scientific knowledge by enabling others to identify weaknesses or gaps that can be exploited by new ideas or technology that inevitably extend, improve, or refine a hypothesis. Experimental details, described in manuscript materials and methods, are the principal vehicle used to communicate procedures, techniques, and resources necessary for experimental reproducibility. Recent examination of the biomedical literature has shown that many published articles lack sufficiently detailed methodological information to reproduce experiments. There are few broadly established practice guidelines and quality assurance standards in basic biomedical research. The current paper provides a framework of best practices to address the lack of reporting of detailed materials and methods that is pervasive in histological slide-based assays. Our goal is to establish a structured framework that highlights the key factors necessary for thorough collection of metadata and reporting of slide-based assays. Keywords: Reproducibility; histotechniques; metadata; protocol; slide-based assay.