Post-meeting Resources

📃 Slides:

@Feb Meeting Slides-Part 1 (Kim)-Transparent_Reporting_Standards.pdf

@Feb Meeting Slides-Part 2 (Vahid)-Transparent_Reporting_Standards.pdf

🎦 Zoom Recording

February Meeting AI Summary

</aside>

Date: March 6, 2026

Presenters: Kimberly & Vahid

Learning Community: Open Science in Practice: Tools and Workflows for Transparent, Reproducible Research

🎯 Meeting Objectives

By the end of this session, participants will be able to:

Explain the evidence base showing how incomplete reporting undermines research quality, synthesis, and clinical/policy translation
Navigate the EQUATOR Network to identify the appropriate reporting guideline(s) for any study type
Apply major reporting guidelines (CONSORT 2025, PRISMA 2020, STROBE, SRQR, COREQ) to their own discipline and research designs
Distinguish between qualitative reporting standards (SRQR vs. COREQ) and apply them appropriately
Implement discipline-specific reporting practices for psychology, chemistry, computing, criminology, and modern languages
Use automated tools (Penelope.ai, GoodReports.org) to check reporting completeness
Construct transparent methods and results sections that meet current reporting standards
Complete a reporting checklist for their own research (published or in-progress)

PART 1️⃣: The "Why" and the Disciplinary Perspective

1.1 Why Transparent Reporting Matters (Beyond Reproducibility)

The Reporting Quality Gap: Evidence from Meta-Research

Despite decades of methodological advances, biomedical and social science research continues to suffer from a pervasive reporting quality gap. Glasziou and colleagues estimated that approximately 85% of research investment is wasted, with at least 50% of studies suffering from such poor reporting that they are unusable for evidence synthesis, replication, or clinical translation. This waste translates to over $170 billion annually in global health research alone.