Training means learning to follow rules, experience is recognizing exceptions⁽¹⁾. Unfortunately the latter is provided exclusively by the time, however initiatives such as the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUality And Transparency Of health Research) Network and its reporting guidelines may help with the former. The purpose of this international initiative (launched in June 2008) is to improve the value and reliability of the research literature by promoting accurate and transparent reporting⁽²⁾.

Poorly designed reports lead to a waste of money in research. The lack of training and knowledge of existing tools by authors, editors and peer reviewers is the main reason⁽³⁾. Moreover, the public expects that research is conducted and reported to the highest standards^(4,5).

Editors noted that in the 1970-1980s many of the published studies lacked transparent methodological rigor. It was estimated that blinding was reported in only 30% of trials from major journals, primary end points were described in 27%, sample size was provided in only 43% of trials and <5% trials were truly randomized⁽⁶⁾. Use to be a hard task to the reviewer or readers of the research identify the good from the bad.

The challenge was to provide a framework for authors to ensure they reported the essential information needed to enable critical analysis by reviewers and readers. To deal with this objective there were developed checklists of essential items to be reported for each specific study design. The most popular are the CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials), the STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology), and the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses).

CONSORT, STROBE and PRISMA are now standard requirements for most major journals and are widely supported by the major editorial groups. In those journals adopting these checklists, an improvement in reporting of the critical elements has been observed⁽⁷⁾.

The main mechanism for dissemination and acceptance of reporting guidelines among authors and reviewers has been its endorsement by journals. Such endorsement is usually done by a statement of support in a journal's "Instructions for Authors", encouraging authors to adopt a checklist when submitting their manuscript⁽³⁾.

In conclusion, the reporting guidelines will not be an additional obstacle for publication. Advantages of its use for authors include the supply of a structure by which to upgrade the transparency and clarity of report writing; for reviewers and readers benefits include a method by which to critically analyze an article. From the 1^st number of 2015, the Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia will endorse these guidelines and will employ them within the review process. We hope the implementation of those checklists, as a condition of submission for most of research designs by our journal, will induce an improvement in the quality of papers published.