Abstract Avoidable research waste – that is, research that is unnecessary, poorly designed, or insufficiently communicated – limits the value of scholarship. Building on our earlier work, where we drew lessons from healthcare research to describe five sources of avoidable waste in applied linguistics research, this article focuses on the fifth source: quality of research reporting. Inadequate reporting limits understanding, constrains evidence-informed practice, undermines efforts to replicate or scrutinize empirical claims, and impedes research synthesis. Drawing on precedents from healthcare, particularly the development and widespread adoption of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials reporting guideline and the work of the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of Health Research Network, we illustrate how coordinated, consensus-driven reporting guidelines can improve the transparency, completeness, and usability of published research. A survey of instructions to authors across leading applied linguistics journals reveals fragmented and uneven guidance. While promising examples exist, field-wide reporting standards remain absent. We argue that applied linguistics is well positioned to develop design-specific, applied linguistics-focused reporting guidelines through a collaborative, international process involving methodologists, editors, research synthesists, and practitioners. Such an initiative would represent a critical step toward reducing research waste and enhancing the usability of applied linguistics research.
Chalmers et al. (Fri,) studied this question.