On this page
Each stage of a research project comes with its own checklist — an ethics committee form, a CONSORT or STROBE reporting checklist, a specific journal's author guidelines — and none of them exist in one place. It's common to be meticulous about one stage's requirements while missing an item that belongs to an earlier or later one entirely: a missing conflict-of-interest declaration discovered at submission, a trial registration number that should have been secured months earlier and now can't be added retroactively.
This article isn't a replacement for those stage-specific checklists — it's the connective layer between them: a single reference list spanning the full journey, so nothing falls into the gap between one checklist ending and the next one starting.
Why This Happens
Requirements are scattered across many separate sources
An ethics form, a statistical reporting standard, and a journal's author guidelines are maintained by three entirely different organizations, each with its own checklist and none aware of the others.
Some items have to happen early or not at all
Prospective trial registration is the clearest example — it needs to happen before enrollment starts, and can't be fixed retroactively once data collection is underway.
Items get assumed to be "someone else's responsibility"
A conflict-of-interest statement or funding disclosure can fall through the gap between co-authors, each assuming another has handled it, until a journal's submission system flags it as missing.
Common Mistakes We See
- Trial registration completed after enrollment has begun. Prospective registration (e.g. ClinicalTrials.gov) needs to happen before the first participant is enrolled — most journals will not accept retrospective registration for a clinical trial.
- No data sharing statement included. An increasing number of journals require an explicit statement on data availability, even if the answer is "data available on reasonable request."
- Conflict of interest and funding disclosures missing or incomplete. Required for every author, not just the corresponding author, and easy to overlook when co-authors are added late.
- No ORCID iD provided when required. An increasing number of journals require this for all authors at submission, not just the corresponding author.
- Reference style not matched to the target journal. A small but common cause of formatting rejection at the technical check stage, before peer review even begins.
Practical Recommendations
A condensed master checklist, organized by stage — each item links back to a specific requirement covered in more depth elsewhere in this Knowledge Center.
| Stage | Key items |
|---|---|
| Idea & Proposal | PICO-format question; clear primary objective |
| Protocol & Ethics | Sample size calculated; ethics approval submitted; prospective trial registration completed (if applicable) |
| Data | Data dictionary defined; confounders identified; informed consent documented |
| Analysis | Statistical test matched to data type; plan agreed before collection ends |
| Writing | Correct reporting checklist followed (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA); conclusion proportionate to evidence |
| Submission | Target journal's author guidelines followed; COI, funding, and data sharing statements included; ORCID provided if required |
| Post-acceptance | Proofs checked carefully; co-author sign-off obtained before final submission |
Quick Checklist
- Research question is written in PICO format with a single primary objective
- Sample size is calculated and documented in the protocol
- Ethics approval is secured, and trial registration is completed before enrollment if applicable
- Data dictionary and confounder list are prepared before data collection
- Statistical plan matches the data type and is agreed before analysis begins
- Correct reporting checklist (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA) is followed in the manuscript
- Conflict of interest, funding, and data sharing statements are complete for every author
- ORCID iDs, reference style, and formatting match the target journal's specific guidelines
Need Expert Guidance?
Book a free call with PureMed and let our research specialists help you save valuable time, avoid costly research mistakes, and move confidently toward publication.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this replace my institution's or ethics committee's own checklist?
No — treat it as a connective layer across the whole journey, not a substitute for the specific forms and requirements your institution, ethics committee, or target journal require.
Should I use this checklist before or after reading the full roadmap article?
Either order works, but the roadmap article explains the reasoning and realistic timelines behind each stage, while this checklist is meant as a quick reference once you already understand the sequence.
Do systematic reviews need a different version of this checklist?
Largely the same structure applies, with PRISMA and PROSPERO registration replacing some of the clinical-trial-specific items like prospective trial registration.
What's the single item most often missed at submission?
Conflict of interest and funding disclosures for co-authors added later in the project — worth confirming explicitly with every author before submission, not assuming it's been handled.