Reporting of a research work is as significant part of the study as its analysis or design. Research transparency (which is defined as the responsibility to make methods, analysis, data and interpretive choices underlying their claims visible in such a manner which allows others to evaluate them) is recognized by almost all social scientists as a fundamental ethical obligation. Some researchers worry that enhancing transparency can encourage invasive demands from journal editors, undermine ethical protection of subjects or unfairly increase their logistical load. Moreover, research relating to human health must hold the potential to improve the treatment or prevention of disease or advance scientific understanding. Publications are usually in the form of articles in scientific journals, which should aptly describe the experiments and the consequent results. Reporting of clinical research is extremely significant to many groups, especially systematic reviewers, other scientists, clinicians and patients.

In the field of research reporting, there are certain broad principles which should be unarguable. These include reporting of transparent, truthful and not intentionally mislead data. As per the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, in return for the trust and altruism that make clinical research possible, the research enterprise has an important responsibility to carry out research ethically and also to report it honestly. Additionally, the research articles should be useful to the readers and the report must include all the relevant information about the methods and results which are necessary to judge the relevance and validity of a study.

A huge literature over several years has documented continuous failings in the field of health research literature to stick to those standards and principles. A prime source of evidence of these failings is mostly visible in systemic surveys. In addition to this, multiple reviews of published articles, particularly those identifying with randomized controlled trials (RCTs), have persistently shown that key data is absent from the trial reports. In the absence of a clear understanding of how an experiment was carried out, readers are not able to judge if the results and findings are reliable worthy. Inadequate reporting also leads the readers to either reject the article or take on trust the study was carried out well to accept the findings. Such cases are surprising in the light of importance of peer review of research articles. Most of the journals generally use peer review as a filter for helping them decide after proper revision if the articles hold significance and are good enough to be published. Therefore, quality checks, such as technical editing and peer review for all journals should be effective enough to prevent poor quality reporting of research.

What does Inadequate Reporting of Research Mean?

The scientific community can be affected by the loopholes in reporting by two major ways. Firstly, the methods of the study are many times not described with adequate relevant details and secondly, the findings of the study are presented incompletely, ambiguously, or selectively. The combined effects of these issues might render a lot of reports in research unusable or even harmful making them a waste of resources. The shortcomings include (but are not limited to):
• Statistical errors.
• Omission of critical aspects of methods, for example, precise details of interventions, inclusion and exclusion criteria and measurement of outcomes.
• Selective and inadequate reporting of results.
• Presentation of manipulated data and graphs.
• Inappropriate citations of other studies.
• Insufficient and misleading abstract.

Consequences of Inadequate and Non-Transparent Reporting

Non-publication of certain report findings in research articles, either by suppression of complete studies, or selective reporting, in a great way diminishes the quality of study and the evidence base. The diminution due to ignorance, carelessness or deliberate ambiguous reporting poses a harmful impact on the healthcare sector and patient care. Poor reporting practices in every manner distort the available body of research evidence along with compromising its usefulness and reliability. Not just is it a considerable waste of funded and performed research with both scientific and financial consequences, but also non-transparent research reporting are held accountable for breaching ethical and moral principles.