A Window Into the State of the Science: Current Reporting Practices Related to Generalizability in MRI and Functional-MRI Studies

Concerns for the replicability, reliability, and generalizability of MRI and functional MRI (fMRI) research have led to debates over the contributions of sample size, open-science practices, and recruitment methods, particularly in the psychological sciences. Key to understanding the state of a science is an assessment of reporting practices. In this structured review, we evaluated select reporting practices across three domains: (a) demographic (e.g., age), (b) methodological (e.g., inclusion/exclusion criteria), and (c) open science and generalizability (e.g., preregistration, target-population identification). Included were 919 published MRI and fMRI studies from 2019 in nine top-ranked journals. Reporting across domains was infrequent; participant racial-ethnic identity (14.8%), reasons for missing imaging data (31.2%), and identification of a target population (19.4%) were particularly low. Reporting likelihood varied by study characteristics (e.g., journal) and was correlated across domains. Finally, study sample size but not reporting frequency was positively associated with 2-year citation counts. Results call for recentering transparency in reporting practices in MRI and fMRI studies, with direct implications for study generalizability.