Reporting Checklist Review
Pubrica’s reporting checklist review is for authors preparing a manuscript for journal submission. Our reporting guideline specialists check your manuscript item by item against the guideline for your study type and deliver the completed checklist, with page and line references and a list of missing items. Journals request this checklist and reviewers compare it with the paper, so an entry that points to content the manuscript does not contain can undermine confidence in the whole submission.
- The right guideline for your study type: CONSORT 2025 for trials, PRISMA 2020 for reviews, STROBE for observational studies and a dozen others
- Item by item against the manuscript, with the page and line reference for every item present
- Missing items identified with what would satisfy them, so that each gap can be closed with a short addition
- The current version: CONSORT and SPIRIT were updated to 2025 versions last year, and a checklist based on the 2010 version is out of date
- The completed checklist delivered, in the form your journal takes
Guideline identified for your study typeIncluded
Item-by-item check against the textIncluded
Missing items with remediesIncluded
Completed checklist deliveredIncluded
Writing the missing contentQuoted separately
Study type → guideline → checked → located → checklist
- Guideline matched to the study type
- Checked against the manuscript text
- Page and line for every item
- Missing items given a remedy
- Current versions only
Deliverables
Four Components of Every Reporting Checklist Review
Each review covers four components. The study design determines which checklist applies.
Identification exampleSubmitting a PRISMA checklist for a cohort study, or a CONSORT checklist for a non-randomised comparison, indicates to reviewers that the guideline was not applied correctly.
Review exampleItem 6a: Completely defined pre-specified primary outcome. Page 7.Item 6a: the primary outcome is named on page 7 but not defined — no measurement method, no timepoint. Not satisfied as written. One sentence fixes it.
Findings exampleMost missing items require a single sentence. A few indicate information that was not recorded during the study, and these are best identified before a reviewer raises them.
Version check exampleA checklist based on a superseded version indicates an outdated template, and reviewers notice this.
Samples are illustrative and anonymised. Hover over a sample to replay it.
Compliance and Standards
Reporting Guidelines and Quality Standards by Study Design
The EQUATOR Network catalogues these guidelines. The study type determines which applies, and some studies require more than one.
CONSORT 2025 and SPIRIT 2025 (trials and protocols)
Randomised trial reporting and trial protocols. Both moved to 2025 versions last year, replacing CONSORT 2010 and SPIRIT 2013.
PRISMA 2020 (reviews and meta-analyses)
Systematic review and meta-analysis reporting, including the twelve-item abstract checklist and the flow diagram.
Observational and other designs (STROBE, STARD, ARRIVE 2.0, CARE, COREQ, SQUIRE 2.0, TRIPOD+AI)
Cohort and case-control studies, diagnostic accuracy, animal research, case reports, qualitative research, quality improvement and prediction models.
Quality management (cert. H3CR9TCU20251212INDQM10N)
Our quality management system governs how work is managed, recorded and released.
Responsible Use of AI
Our Approach to AI Use and Disclosure
Journals now ask authors to declare any AI tools used in preparing a manuscript. Pubrica treats this declaration as part of the deliverable and tells you exactly what was used on your manuscript, so that you can complete it accurately.
Why We Do Not Publish AI Accuracy Figures
Accuracy figures for AI tools are usually reported by the companies that sell them.
Pubrica therefore quotes no self-generated accuracy figure, as it would carry the same conflict of interest. Instead, we tell you which tool was used on your project, at which stage, and what a human editor changed afterwards.
How It Works
How Our Reporting Checklist Review Process Works
The review has three steps: identifying the guideline, checking each item and completing the checklist. The item-by-item check takes the most time and cannot be shortened.
Identify the guideline
We identify the guideline from the study design rather than from how the authors describe it, and where more than one applies, we check all of them.
Check item by item
Every item is located in the manuscript with a page and line reference, or recorded as absent with a note of what would satisfy it.
Complete and deliver
We complete the checklist in the form your journal requires and supply a gap list so that you can address missing items before submission.
Our experts
Our Reporting Checklist Review Team
The same named team works on your project from scoping to delivery, and your project coordinator introduces each member before work begins.
Reviews the scientific content for accuracy and confirms that each conclusion is supported by the evidence. The expert is matched to your field.
Edits for clarity, grammar, structure and consistency while preserving the author voice and scientific meaning.
Checks the finished work independently against the agreed scope and the applicable checklist. Findings are logged and resolved before delivery.
Manages the timeline, keeps you informed at each stage and coordinates the team so that questions are answered and deadlines are met.
Packages
Reporting Checklist Review Packages
The cost depends on the study type and the length of the checklist; for example, a CONSORT review is longer than a CARE review.
Checklist review
Any manuscript with a reporting guideline
Quoted per projectOn study type and checklist length
Delivery By scope
- ✓Guideline identified from the study design
- ✓Item-by-item check against the manuscript
- ✓Page and line for every satisfied item
- ✓Missing items with remedies
- ✓Completed checklist in your journal’s form
Where more than one guideline applies, all of them are checked.
Deliverables Request a quoteReview with remediation
Manuscripts with gaps to close before submission
Quoted per projectOn the number and nature of gaps
Delivery By scope
- ✓Everything in the review
- ✓Missing items written into the manuscript
- ✓Structural changes where an item needs one
- ✓Re-checked after the additions
- ✓Final checklist delivered
Where an item is missing because something was not recorded during the study, we say so rather than writing around it.
Deliverables Request a quoteSend your manuscript and we will check the first ten checklist items free of charge. This check will also show whether your checklist template still cites CONSORT 2010.
FAQs
Reporting Checklist FAQs
If your question is not answered here, please ask an expert. No quote is required.
The checklist follows from the study design. Randomised trials use CONSORT 2025, systematic reviews PRISMA 2020, observational studies STROBE, diagnostic accuracy studies STARD, animal research ARRIVE 2.0, prediction models TRIPOD+AI, case reports CARE and qualitative research COREQ.
Some studies require more than one, such as a systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies. We identify all applicable guidelines from the design rather than from the title.
Yes, and many authors do, often from memory. However, it is easy to enter a page number for an item that the manuscript does not actually satisfy.
A reviewer who follows one reference and finds nothing is likely to check all of them, and an inaccurate checklist then weakens the submission.
In that case we state that it cannot be satisfied and explain why. Some items do not apply to a given design, and marking them as not applicable with a reason is acceptable.
Occasionally an item is missing because information was not recorded during the study. This cannot be addressed by rewording, and you should be aware of it before a reviewer raises it.
It may be. CONSORT and SPIRIT were both updated to 2025 versions last year, and many templates in circulation have not been updated.
A checklist based on CONSORT 2010 indicates an outdated template, which is easily avoided.
Related services
Related Publication Support Services
The reporting checklist is one of several pre-submission checks.
1OTHER PRE-SUBMISSION CHECKSat the same stage
Statistical reviewReview of methods and analysis. Manuscript checkA rapid technical and formatting check.2STUDY DESIGN SUPPORTupstream
Clinical trial supportSupport with protocols, SAPs and disclosure. Systematic reviewSupport with protocols, searches, screening and synthesis.3PREPARING FOR SUBMISSIONafter the checks
Manuscript editingA full copyedit with journal formatting. Journal submissionSupport with the submission portal, files and declarations.Request a Free Check of the First Ten Checklist Items
This check will also show whether your checklist template still cites CONSORT 2010.