That's what I would do. I think that isn't actually an unreasonable complaint: the current paper has very few details about the paradigm used in those experime

That's what I would do. I think that isn't actually an unreasonable complaint: the current paper has very few details about the paradigm used in those experiments. There is a really brief table, along with some comments embedded in R output, but what the paper really needs is something that looks like a methods section from an experimental psycholinguistics paper. Something like this: Experiment 1: Nineteen native English speakers (demographics here) performed a lexical decision task. Three string of letters was presented on a computer monitor (viewing conditions here). Subjects were asked to report, via a button press, whether the middle string was a valid English word (left button) or psuedoword (right button). Although they had up to 5 sec to respond, subjects were instructed to respond as quickly as possible and the median reaction time was N.NN seconds. The original experiment manipulated (some irrelevant condition), which is not analyzed here. Instead, we calculated... Experiment 2: As above, except the subject pool consisted of native German speakers and the stimuli were either German words or German psuedowords. Experiment 3: Same as experiment 1, except that (irrelevant condition #2) was also manipulated instead of (irrelevant condition #1). This might not fit in the main paper--even online-only journals can be weird about page limits--but it would be fine in an appendix.