Editing IMRAD (section)

==Additional standardization (reporting guidelines)==
{{external links|date=March 2022|reason=this can be fixed by converting the data in the "best link" column to ref citations (i.e., convert that column into a "principal references" column); it just requires the time to do so.}}
<!-- [[Reporting standards in the scientific literature]] redirects here. This section needs to be [[WP:SPINOFF|spun off]] to a separate article titled "[[Reporting standards in the scientific literature]]", but I am not sure how soon I can devote time to building v1.0 of such an article. -->

In the late 20th century and early 21st, the scientific communities found that the communicative value of journal articles was still much less than it could be if [[best practice]]s were developed, promoted, and enforced. Thus reporting guidelines (guidelines for how best to report information) arose. The general theme has been to create [[template (word processing)|templates]] and [[checklist]]s with the message to the user being, "your article is not complete until you have done all of these things." In the 1970s, the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) released the [[Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals]] (Uniform Requirements or URM). Other such [[technical standard|standards]], mostly developed in the 1990s through 2010s, are listed below. The academic medicine community is working hard on trying to raise compliance with good reporting standards, but there is still much to be done;<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Couzin-Frankel|first=Jennifer|date=2018-09-19|title='Journalologists' use scientific methods to study academic publishing. Is their work improving science?|journal=Science|language=en|doi=10.1126/science.aav4758|s2cid=115360831|issn=0036-8075}}</ref> for example, a 2016 review of instructions for authors in 27 emergency medicine journals found insufficient mention of reporting standards,<ref name="pmid_27881175">{{cite journal | vauthors = Sims MT, Henning NM, Wayant CC, [[Matt Vassar|Vassar M]] | title = Do emergency medicine journals promote trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines? A survey of "Instructions for Authors" | journal = Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine | volume = 24 | issue = 1 | pages = 137 | date = November 2016 | pmid = 27881175 | pmc = 5121955 | doi = 10.1186/s13049-016-0331-3 | doi-access = free }}</ref> and a 2018 study found that even when journals' instructions for authors mention reporting standards, there is a difference between a mention or [[web badge|badge]] and enforcing the requirements that the mention or badge represents.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Leung V, Rousseau-Blass F, Beauchamp G, Pang DS | title = ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesia | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 13 | issue = 5 | pages = e0197882 | date = 2018-05-24 | pmid = 29795636 | pmc = 5967836 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0197882 | bibcode = 2018PLoSO..1397882L | doi-access = free }}</ref>

The advent of a need for best practices in [[data sharing]] has expanded the scope of these efforts beyond merely the pages of the journal article itself. In fact, from the most rigorous versions of the [[evidence-based medicine|evidence-based]] perspective, the distance to go is still quite formidable.<ref name="pmid_29595127">{{cite journal | vauthors = Jefferson T, Jørgensen L | title = Redefining the 'E' in EBM | journal = BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine | volume = 23 | issue = 2 | pages = 46–47 | date = April 2018 | pmid = 29595127 | doi = 10.1136/bmjebm-2018-110918 | doi-access = free }}</ref> [[FORCE11]] is an international coalition that has been developing standards for how to share research data sets properly and most effectively. 

Most researchers cannot be familiar with all of the many reporting standards that now exist, but it is enough to know which ones must be followed in one's own work, and to know where to look for details when needed. Several organizations provide help with this task of checking one's own compliance with the latest standards: 
* The [[EQUATOR Network]]
* The BioSharing collaboration ([https://archive.today/20130414073140/http://biosharing.org/ biosharing.org])

Several important webpages on this topic are: 
* NLM's list at [https://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/research_report_guide.html Research Reporting Guidelines and Initiatives: By Organization] 
* The EQUATOR Network's list at [http://www.equator-network.org/toolkits/using-guidelines-in-journals/reporting-guidelines-and-journals-fact-fiction/ Reporting guidelines and journals: fact & fiction]
* TRANSPOSE [https://transpose-publishing.github.io (Transparency in Scholarly Publishing for Open Scholarship Evolution)], "a grassroots initiative to build a crowdsourced database of journal policies," allowing faster and easier lookup and comparison, and potentially spurring harmonization

Relatedly, [[SHERPA (organisation)|SHERPA]] provides compliance-checking tools, and [[AllTrials]] provides a rallying point, for efforts to enforce [[open data|openness]] and completeness of [[clinical trial]] reporting. These efforts stand against [[publication bias]] and against [[corporatocracy|excessive corporate influence]] on [[scientific integrity]].

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+ Reporting standards in the scientific literature
|-
! scope="col" style="width: 10%;" | Short name 
! scope="col" style="width: 20%;" | Longer name 
! scope="col" style="width: 20%;" | Best link 
! scope="col" style="width: 20%;" | Organization that fostered it 
! scope="col" style="width: 30%;" | Goals/Notes 
|-
| AMSTAR || (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) || [http://amstar.ca/ amstar.ca] || [http://amstar.ca/contact_us.php AMSTAR team] || Provides a tool to test the quality of [[systematic review]]s 
|-
| ARRIVE || (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) || [http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/arrive-guidelines www.nc3rs.org.uk/arrive-guidelines] || [https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ NC3Rs] || Seeks to improve the reporting of [[animal testing|research using animals]] (maximizing information published and minimizing unnecessary studies)
|-
| CARE || (Consensus-based Clinical Case Reporting Guideline Development) || [http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/care/ www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/care] || [http://www.care-statement.org/ CARE Group] || Seeks completeness, transparency, and data analysis in case reports and data from the point of care
|-
| CHEERS || (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) || [https://www.ispor.org/Health-Economic-Evaluation-Publication-CHEERS-Guidelines.asp www.ispor.org/Health-Economic-Evaluation-Publication-CHEERS-Guidelines.asp] || [https://www.ispor.org/ ISPOR] || Seeks [[health economics|value in health care]]
|-
| CONSORT || ([[Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials]]) || [http://www.consort-statement.org/ www.consort-statement.org] || [http://www.consort-statement.org/ CONSORT Group] || Provides a minimum set of recommendations for reporting [[randomized experiment|randomized trial]]s
|-
| COREQ || (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) || [http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/coreq/ www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/coreq/] || [[University of Sydney]] || Seeks quality in reporting of [[qualitative research]] by providing a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups 
|-
| EASE guidelines || ([[EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles|EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to be Published in English]] || [http://www.ease.org.uk/publications/author-guidelines-authors-and-translators/ www.ease.org.uk/publications/author-guidelines-authors-and-translators/] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181125021658/http://www.ease.org.uk/publications/author-guidelines-authors-and-translators/ |date=2018-11-25 }} || [[European Association of Science Editors|EASE]] || Seeks quality reporting of all [[scientific literature]] 
|-
| Empirical Standards || ACM SIGSOFT Empirical Standards for Software Engineering Research || [https://acmsigsoft.github.io/EmpiricalStandards/ https://acmsigsoft.github.io/EmpiricalStandards/] || [https://www.sigsoft.org/ ACM SIGSOFT] || Provides methodology-specific research and reporting guidelines, checklists and reviewing systems 
|-
| ENTREQ || (Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research) || [https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/entreq/ www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/entreq/] || Various universities || Provides a framework for reporting the synthesis of [[qualitative research|qualitative health research]] 
|-
| FAIR || (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability) || [https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18] || Various organizations || High-level goals, allowing for various ways to achieve them; specifies "what" is wanted and "why", allowing the "how" to be determined by the researcher 
|-
| ICMJE || ([[ICMJE recommendations|Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals]]; formerly known as the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals) || [http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/ www.icmje.org/recommendations] || [http://www.icmje.org/ ICMJE] || Seeks quality in [[medical literature|medical journal]] articles
|-
| JARS || Journal Article Reporting Standards || [http://www.apastyle.org/manual/related/JARS-MARS.pdf www.apastyle.org/manual/related/JARS-MARS.pdf] || [[American Psychological Association]] || Seeks quality in psychological research reporting; published in the appendix of the ''[[APA style|APA Publication Manual]]'' 
|-
| MARS || Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards || [http://www.apastyle.org/manual/related/JARS-MARS.pdf www.apastyle.org/manual/related/JARS-MARS.pdf] || [[American Psychological Association]] || Seeks quality in psychological research reporting; published in the appendix of the ''[[APA style|APA Publication Manual]]'' 
|-
| MI || [[Minimum Information Standards|Minimum Information standards]] || [https://archive.today/20130414073140/http://biosharing.org/ biosharing.org] || Various organizations || A family of standards for bioscience reporting, developed by the various relevant specialty organizations and collated by the BioSharing portal ([https://archive.today/20130414073140/http://biosharing.org/ biosharing.org]) (formerly collated by the MIBBI portal [Minimum Information about a Biomedical or Biological Investigation])
|-
| MOOSE || (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) || [http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/192614 jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/192614] || MOOSE group (various organizations) || Seeks quality in [[meta-analysis]] of [[observational study|observational studies]] in [[epidemiology]] 
|-
| NOS || ([[Newcastle–Ottawa scale]]) || [http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp] || [[University of Newcastle (Australia)|University of Newcastle, Australia]] and [[University of Ottawa]] || Assesses quality of nonrandomized studies included in a systematic review and/or meta-analysis 
|-
| PRISMA || ([[Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses]]) || [http://www.prisma-statement.org/ www.prisma-statement.org] || [http://www.prisma-statement.org/ PRSIMA group] || Seeks quality in [[systematic review]]s and [[meta-analysis|meta-analyses]], especially in the [[medical literature]], but applicable to most [[scientific literature]]; PRISMA supersedes [[QUOROM flow chart|QUOROM]] 
|-
| REMARK || (Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies) || [https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji237 doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji237] || [[National Cancer Institute|NCI]] and [[European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer|EORTC]]|| Seeks quality in reporting of [[tumor marker]] research 
|-
| RR || (registered reports) || [https://cos.io/rr cos.io/rr] || [[Center for Open Science]] || Applies the principles of [[preregistration (science)|preregistration]] with the aim to improve both the quality of science being done and the quality of its reporting in journals. Aims to improve the [[incentivisation|incentivization]] of scientists by removing [[perverse incentive]]s that encourage [[publication bias]] and inappropriate/excessive forms of [[post hoc analysis]]; it involves two [[peer review]] steps: one before results reporting (to review methodology alone) and another after results reporting. 
|-
| SAMPL || (Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature) || [http://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/SAMPL-Guidelines-3-13-13.pdf www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/SAMPL-Guidelines-3-13-13.pdf] || [[Centre for Statistics in Medicine]] at [[Oxford University]] || Seeks quality in [[statistics]] in the [[medical research|biomedical literature]] 
|-
| SPIRIT || (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) || [http://www.spirit-statement.org/ www.spirit-statement.org] || [http://www.spirit-statement.org/about-spirit/the-people-of-spirit/ SPIRIT Group] (various organizations) || Seeks quality in clinical trial [[protocol (science)|protocols]] by defining an [[evidence-based medicine|evidence-based]] set of items to address in every protocol 
|-
| SQUIRE || (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) || [http://www.squire-statement.org/ www.squire-statement.org] || [http://www.squire-statement.org/ SQUIRE team] (various organizations) || Provides a framework for reporting new knowledge about how to improve healthcare; intended for reports that describe system level work to improve the [[health care quality]], [[patient safety]], and [[health economics|value in health care]] 
|-
| SRQR || (Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations) || [https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388 doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388] || Various [[medical school]]s || Provides standards for reporting [[qualitative research]] 
|-
| STAR || Structured, Transparent, Accessible Reporting || [https://www.cell.com/star-authors-guide www.cell.com/star-authors-guide] || [[Cell Press]] || Improved reporting of [[methodology|methods]] to aid [[reproducibility]] and researcher workflow<ref name="pmid_27565332">{{cite journal | vauthors = Marcus E | title = A STAR Is Born | journal = Cell | volume = 166 | issue = 5 | pages = 1059–1060 | date = August 2016 | pmid = 27565332 | doi = 10.1016/j.cell.2016.08.021 | doi-access = free }}</ref> 
|-
| STARD || (Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) || [http://www.stard-statement.org/ www.stard-statement.org] || STARD Group (various organizations) || [[Medical diagnosis|Diagnostic]] accuracy 
|-
| STROBE || (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) || [https://www.strobe-statement.org/ www.strobe-statement.org] || STROBE Group (various organizations) || Seeks quality in reporting of [[observational study|observational studies]] in [[epidemiology]] 
|-
| TOP || (Transparency and Openness Promotion) || [https://cos.io/top/ cos.io/top/] || ([[Center for Open Science]]) || Codifies 8 modular standards, for each of which a journal's editorial policy can pledge to meet a certain level of stringency (Disclose, Require, or Verify)
|-
| TREND || (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs) || [https://www.cdc.gov/trendstatement/ www.cdc.gov/trendstatement] || TREND Group (various organizations) || Seeks to improve the reporting standards of nonrandomized evaluations of [[applied behavior analysis|behavioral]] and [[public health]] interventions
|-
| TRIPOD || (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) || [https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0697 doi.org/10.7326/M14-0697] || [[Centre for Statistics in Medicine]] ([[Oxford University]]) and Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care ([[University Medical Center Utrecht]]) || Provides a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, [[test validity|validating]], or updating a [[predictive modelling|prediction model]], whether for [[medical diagnosis|diagnostic]] or [[prognosis|prognostic]] purposes 
|-
| URM / ICMJE || ([[ICMJE recommendations|Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals]]; formerly known as the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals) || [http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/ www.icmje.org/recommendations] || [http://www.icmje.org/ ICMJE] || Seeks quality in [[medical literature|medical journal]] articles 
|}