Avoidable research waste – that is, research that is unnecessary, poorly designed, or insufficiently communicated – limits the value of scholarship. Building on our earlier work, where we drew lessons from healthcare research to describe five sources of avoidable waste in applied linguistics research, this article focuses on the fifth source: quality of research reporting. Inadequate reporting limits understanding, constrains evidence-informed practice, undermines efforts to replicate or scrutinize empirical claims, and impedes research synthesis. Drawing on precedents from healthcare, particularly the development and widespread adoption of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials reporting guideline and the work of the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of Health Research Network, we illustrate how coordinated, consensus-driven reporting guidelines can improve the transparency, completeness, and usability of published research. A survey of instructions to authors across leading applied linguistics journals reveals fragmented and uneven guidance. While promising examples exist, field-wide reporting standards remain absent. We argue that applied linguistics is well positioned to develop design-specific, applied linguistics-focused reporting guidelines through a collaborative, international process involving methodologists, editors, research synthesists, and practitioners. Such an initiative would represent a critical step toward reducing research waste and enhancing the usability of applied linguistics research.

For 2025, three new additions will be made to the instructions for authors. This includes an updated policy on P values, more detailed instructions for educational studies, and the use of existing reporting guidelines for many study designs.

Studies have demonstrated that the quality and transparency of reporting clinical practice guidelines (CPG) in health care are low. This meta-research aimed to evaluate the adherence of nutrition CPG for critically ill adults to the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealTh care (RIGHT) checklist and its association with the methodological quality assessed by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II), along with other potential publication-related factors. A systematic search for CPG until December 2024 was conducted. RIGHT and AGREE II were applied. Eleven CPG were identified, none demonstrated adherence greater than 60 % to the RIGHT checklist and the mean RIGHT score was 33·5 ± 15·5 %. There was a strong correlation between the RIGHT score and AGREE II (r 0·886). A development CPG team including methodologist and/or statistician was associated with a higher RIGHT score (48·9 ± 4·5 v. 27·2 ± 11·0), and it was higher in CPG recommended or recommended with modifications by AGREE II in comparison to those not recommended (50·1 ± 4·6 v. 37·7 ± 8·1 v. 17·0 ± 6·8), and in those with acceptable and moderate compared with those with low methodological quality (50·1 ± 4·6 v. 32·2 ± 14·5 v. 19·3 ± 6·2). It was also related to the language of publication, being higher in those published in English. The reporting completeness in CPG for critically ill adults was low, with a strong correlation with the methodological quality. High values of reporting completeness scores were observed between CPG recommended by AGREE II (with moderate or acceptable quality) and in those including a methodologist/statistician in the development team.

The Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary care (CRISP) provides a new research reporting guideline to meet the needs of the producers and users of primary care (PC) research. Developed through an iterative program of research, including investigators, practicing clinicians, patients, community representatives, and educators, the CRISP Checklist guides PC researchers across the spectrum of research methods, study designs, and topics. This pilot test included a variety of team members using the CRISP Checklist for writing, revising, and reviewing PC research reports. All or most of the 15 participants reported that the checklist was easy to use, improved research reports, and should be recommended by PC research journals. The checklist is adaptable to different study types; not all items apply to all reports. The CRISP Checklist can help meet the needs of PC research when used in parallel with existing guidelines that focus on specific methods and limited topics.

The Standards Committee of the Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association has produced reporting guidelines that aim to increase the clarity of experimental research reports. This paper describes the Committee's rationale for the guidelines it developed and includes our Recommended Reporting Standards for Experiments (Laboratory, Field, Survey). It begins with a content analysis of current reporting practices in published experimental research. Although researchers report most important aspects of their experimental designs and data, we find substantial omissions that could undermine the clarity of research practices and the ability of researchers to assess the validity of study conclusions. With the need for reporting guidelines established, the report describes the process the Committee used to develop the guidelines, the feedback received during the comment period, and the rationale for the final version of the guidelines.

In this special article we describe a number of reporting guidelines endorsed by the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) group for a range of research designs that commonly appear in scientific journals: systematic reviews, clinical trials with and without randomisation, observational studies, n-of-1 (or single-case experimental design) trials, and diagnostic studies. We also consider reporting guidelines for studies using qualitative methodology. In addition to reporting guidelines, we present method quality rating scales, which aim to measure risk of bias that threatens the internal validity of a study. Advantages of reporting guidelines and method quality rating scales for authors include the provision of a structure by which to improve the clarity and transparency of report writing; for reviewers and readers advantages include a method by which to critically appraise an article. Brain Impairment endorses these reporting guidelines and applies them within the review process for submissions to the journal.