Qualitative Reporting Standards

Positionality and reflexivity reporting rates in medical subspecialties mirror those found in nursing journals, where positionality reached 33.4% and reflexivity 19.1%. The majority of sampled studies in both neurology and nephrology did not explicitly state their philosophical perspective, with 78% and 71% omitting it respectively. Researcher positionality was reported in only 21% of neurology studies and 19% of nephrology studies. Reflexivity was the most poorly reported criterion, present in only 18% of neurology and 9% of nephrology studies. Strong methodological coherence — alignment between stated methodology, research aims, data collection, and analytic strategy — was the clearest positive finding. Reporting deficiencies did not differ substantially between high-volume and low-volume subspecialties, indicating these omissions reflect field-wide practice norms rather than subspecialty-specific inexperience. Contributing factors to under-reporting may include publishing word limits as well as shortcomings in research practice itself.