Something needed to be done about the quality of reporting. Several multidisciplinary initiatives were launched with the aim to establish reporting guidelines for the different types of studies. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) pioneered this development,1 soon followed by recommendations for other study designs, including Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) for diagnostic studies,2 and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies.3 Their publication fueled a debate about how best to improve the reporting of medical research. For instance, when the STROBE Statement was published in 2007, some believed that it would lead to a standardization of scientific practice.4,5 Many medical journals, in contrast, welcomed this guideline and recommended its use to their contributors and reviewers.6–8 In CHEST, the use of reporting guidelines became part of the strategy to rise to the challenges of the future.9 Many researchers simply appreciated the guidance provided by the checklists to ensure that their manuscripts contain the essential information about their studies. In addition, the comprehensive explanatory articles that accompanied some of the checklists provided useful background information and examples of good reporting.10–12 Eventually, there were signs indicating that the quality of medical research reports improved over time.13 The contribution of reporting guidelines in this development could not easily be determined, however.