From Form to Formation. Biomedical Reporting Standards in Practice

Modern biomedical research is becoming increasingly industrialized, with standardized practices playing a central role in its evolution. Since the 1990s, reporting guidelines have introduced structured templates for scientific writing, aimed at ensuring quality and consistency in publications. These guidelines, such as PRISMA, were rapidly adopted across diverse biomedical domains and are now widely used by researchers around the world. However, their impact extends far beyond the formal standardization of writing. Because they are tailored to specific types or genres of research, reporting guidelines exert a deeper influence on scientific practice. Interviews with authors of systematic reviews who used PRISMA reveal a varied and complex landscape of usage. Rather than applying the guideline solely for reporting purposes, researchers integrate it into multiple stages of their workflow, including study design, data analysis, and peer review. In doing so, they transform PRISMA into a practical and versatile tool that supports the entire research process. Yet, its use is not uniform. Instead, researchers assign different roles to the guideline depending on individual preferences and contextual factors which, together, are not yet fully systematized or understood. This raises important questions about what exactly is being standardized through reporting guidelines. Moreover, PRISMA’s social implications and the range of tasks it influences suggest that it shapes systematic reviewing as a new profession or a distinct set of tasks within the broader biomedical field.