Reporting standards and the irreducible complexity of scientific writing

Abstract

Thousands of biomedical publications have reported compliance with one of the many reporting guidelines. But evaluations of the effectiveness of these guidelines criticize frequent misuse and conclude only a mild improvement of reporting quality overall. But how can reporting guidelines be so pervasive yet ineffective at the same time? Based on interviews with guideline users, this study analyzes how the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) are integrated into the day-to-day practices of systematic review authors. The results show how the guideline supports writing tasks and redefines systematic reviewing as a genre and practice. But applying the guideline also creates new and complex problems and irreducible complexities, so that writing practices do not become mere mechanistic acts. These findings are interpreted with regards to the discourses about the replication cirisis, the emergence of systemaitc reviewing as profession and the wider transformation towards open science.