Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
COREQ and SRQR are the two most widely required reporting checklists for qualitative research manuscripts. They answer a different question than a methods textbook does: not ‘how do I design or conduct this study’ but ‘what, specifically, does a journal expect me to disclose about it before it is considered complete and trustworthy.’ This page gives the full COREQ 32-item checklist and SRQR 21-item checklist side by side, explains which one a given manuscript should use, and covers the mechanics of submitting either one.
COREQ vs. SRQR: which checklist applies
| Checklist | Full name | Items | Source | Scope | Best fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COREQ | Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research | 32 | Tong, Sainsbury & Craig, International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2007 | Interview and focus-group studies specifically | Health/clinical qualitative research using one-on-one interviews or focus groups — the most commonly mandated checklist in medical and health-services journals |
| SRQR | Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research | 21 | O’Brien, Harris, Beckman, Reed & Cook, Academic Medicine, 2014 | Qualitative research generally, across designs | Grounded theory, ethnography, phenomenology, case study, and any qualitative design that isn’t specifically an interview/focus-group study |
Both are indexed and endorsed by the EQUATOR Network, the umbrella body that maintains the reference library of health-research reporting guidelines. Neither checklist tells you how to design or run a qualitative study — see qualitative research methods for that layer. What they specify is what a completed manuscript must state explicitly, so a reader can judge how the findings were produced without having to infer it.
A closely related third checklist, ENTREQ (Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research), is easy to confuse with COREQ/SRQR but covers different territory: it applies to qualitative evidence synthesis — meta-syntheses and qualitative systematic reviews that aggregate multiple primary studies — not to a single primary qualitative study. If your paper reports original interviews, focus groups, or fieldwork, you want COREQ or SRQR. If it synthesizes findings across several already-published qualitative studies, ENTREQ is the relevant guideline instead.
Which one does a given journal actually require
There is no universal rule, and checklist requirements vary by journal and by field, so the operational answer is always the same: check the target journal’s Instructions for Authors page before submission, and check it again if submitting to a different journal after a prior rejection. That said, a few patterns hold broadly:
- Health, nursing, and clinical journals disproportionately specify COREQ, largely because it was built directly around interview/focus-group methodology, which dominates clinical and health-services qualitative work.
- Education, social science, and general qualitative-methods journals more often specify or accept SRQR, since it was written to generalize across qualitative designs rather than assume one data-collection method.
- Some journals accept either, or ask only that authors follow a recognized reporting guideline appropriate to the study design without naming one — in which case COREQ is the safer default for interview/focus-group studies specifically, and SRQR for everything else.
- Qualitative evidence syntheses should use ENTREQ, not COREQ or SRQR, regardless of what the underlying primary studies used.
The COREQ 32-item checklist
COREQ organizes its 32 items into three domains. Authors are typically asked to submit a completed checklist alongside the manuscript, with a page/section reference for where each item is addressed.
Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity (8 items)
| # | Item | What it asks for |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Interviewer/facilitator | Who conducted the interview or focus group |
| 2 | Credentials | Researcher’s qualifications, e.g. PhD, MD |
| 3 | Occupation | Researcher’s occupation at the time of the study |
| 4 | Gender | Researcher’s gender |
| 5 | Experience and training | Researcher’s experience or training relevant to qualitative data collection |
| 6 | Relationship established | Was a relationship established with participants before study commencement |
| 7 | Participant knowledge of the interviewer | What participants knew about the researcher (e.g. personal goals, reasons for doing the research) |
| 8 | Interviewer characteristics | Characteristics reported relevant to the research topic, e.g. bias, assumptions, motivations |
Domain 2: Study design (15 items)
| # | Item | What it asks for |
|---|---|---|
| 9 | Methodological orientation and theory | Underlying methodology, e.g. grounded theory, discourse analysis, thematic analysis |
| 10 | Sampling | How participants were selected, e.g. purposive, convenience, consecutive, snowball |
| 11 | Method of approach | How participants were approached — face-to-face, telephone, mail, email |
| 12 | Sample size | Number of participants in the study |
| 13 | Non-participation | Number of people who refused or dropped out, and why |
| 14 | Setting of data collection | Where the data was collected, e.g. home, clinic, workplace |
| 15 | Presence of non-participants | Was anyone else present besides participants and researchers |
| 16 | Description of sample | Relevant demographic characteristics, e.g. age, gender, occupation |
| 17 | Interview guide | Were questions, guides, or activities pilot-tested |
| 18 | Repeat interviews | Were repeat interviews carried out; if so, how many |
| 19 | Audio/visual recording | Did the research use audio or visual recording to collect data |
| 20 | Field notes | Were field notes made during and/or after the interview or focus group |
| 21 | Duration | Duration of the interviews or focus groups |
| 22 | Data saturation | Was data saturation discussed |
| 23 | Transcripts returned | Were transcripts returned to participants for comment/correction |
Domain 3: Analysis and findings (9 items)
| # | Item | What it asks for |
|---|---|---|
| 24 | Number of data coders | How many coders analyzed the data |
| 25 | Description of the coding tree | Was a coding tree developed a priori or derived from the data |
| 26 | Derivation of themes | Were themes identified in advance or derived from the data |
| 27 | Software | What software, if any, was used to manage the data |
| 28 | Participant checking | Did participants provide feedback on the findings (member checking) |
| 29 | Quotations presented | Are participant quotations presented and identified, e.g. participant number |
| 30 | Data and findings consistent | Is there consistency between the data presented and the findings |
| 31 | Clarity of major themes | Are major themes clearly presented |
| 32 | Clarity of minor themes | Is there a description of diverse cases or minor themes |
The SRQR 21-item checklist
SRQR is organized by manuscript section rather than by domain, which is one reason it generalizes more easily across qualitative designs beyond interviews and focus groups.
| # | Item | What it asks for |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Title | Concise description of the nature and topic of the study; identifying the study as qualitative or the specific approach used is recommended |
| 2 | Abstract | Summary of key elements using the abstract format of the target journal |
| 3 | Problem formulation | Description and significance of the problem/phenomenon studied; review of relevant theory and empirical work |
| 4 | Purpose or research question | Purpose of the study and specific objectives or questions |
| 5 | Qualitative approach and research paradigm | Qualitative approach (e.g. ethnography, grounded theory, case study) and guiding theory, if any; rationale |
| 6 | Researcher characteristics and reflexivity | Researchers’ characteristics that may influence the research, including personal attributes, qualifications, experience, relationship with participants |
| 7 | Context | Setting/site and salient contextual factors |
| 8 | Sampling strategy | How and why research participants, documents, or events were selected |
| 9 | Ethical issues pertaining to human subjects | Documentation of approval by an ethics review board, informed consent, and other confidentiality/data-security issues |
| 10 | Data collection methods | Types of data collected, details of data-collection procedures including duration |
| 11 | Data collection instruments and technologies | Description of instruments and devices used for data collection; changes made during the study |
| 12 | Units of study | Number and relevant characteristics of participants, documents, or events included |
| 13 | Data processing | Methods for processing data, e.g. transcription, data entry, verification, anonymization |
| 14 | Data analysis | Process by which inferences, themes were identified and developed, including researchers involved |
| 15 | Techniques to enhance trustworthiness | Techniques used to enhance credibility and trustworthiness, e.g. member checking, triangulation, peer debriefing |
| 16 | Synthesis and interpretation | Main findings, presented with sufficient contextualizing data |
| 17 | Links to empirical data | Evidence documenting how findings connect to the data |
| 18 | Integration with prior work, implications, transferability, and contribution(s) | How findings connect to existing literature, practice, and policy |
| 19 | Limitations | Trustworthiness and limitations of findings |
| 20 | Conflicts of interest | Potential sources of influence or perceived influence |
| 21 | Funding | Sources of funding and other support; role of funders in design and conduct |
How the checklist submission actually works
- Draft the manuscript first, complete the checklist against it. The checklist is a disclosure audit, not a drafting template — write the paper following normal qualitative reporting practice, then go item-by-item and confirm each one is addressed somewhere in the manuscript, noting the page or section number.
- Submit the completed checklist as a separate file at manuscript submission, typically alongside the cover letter and manuscript file. Most journals that require COREQ or SRQR provide (or link to) the official checklist template as a fillable table; check the journal’s author guidelines for the exact submission mechanism rather than assuming.
- Reference the item location, don’t just check a box. Reviewers and editors use the checklist to locate specific disclosures quickly; a checklist entry that reads ‘item 22, saturation, p. 6, paragraph 2’ is far more useful, and more credible, than one that just marks every item complete with no page reference.
- An item can legitimately be not applicable. Not every study design produces an answer for every item (item 18, repeat interviews, being a common example for single-session designs). State that explicitly rather than leaving it blank, which reads as an oversight rather than a design fact.
What the checklist doesn’t do
Completing COREQ or SRQR demonstrates transparency of reporting — it does not, by itself, establish that the underlying research was well-designed or rigorously conducted. A study can fully satisfy every checklist item while still having a thin sampling rationale or an underdeveloped coding process; conversely, a methodologically strong study can be marked down at review for incomplete reporting even when the underlying work was sound. The checklists exist specifically because reviewers found qualitative methods sections omitting basic transparency details (who conducted interviews, how saturation was assessed, whether transcripts were returned to participants) often enough that journals moved to require structured disclosure rather than leave it to author discretion. For the substantive rigor criteria that sit behind several checklist items — credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability — see how those are established in practice in the qualitative research methods guide and in triangulation in research.
Frequently asked questions
Is COREQ or SRQR mandatory for publication?
It depends entirely on the target journal. Many health and social-science journals require one as a condition of peer review, others recommend but don’t require it, and some don’t mention either. Always check the specific journal’s author guidelines rather than assuming; a checklist required by one journal in a field is not necessarily required by every journal in that field.
Can I use COREQ for a grounded theory or ethnography study?
COREQ was built specifically around interview and focus-group methodology, so its items (e.g. interview guide pilot-testing, transcript duration) map less cleanly onto observational fieldwork or document-based case studies. SRQR’s items are written at a level that generalizes better across designs. If a journal doesn’t specify, SRQR is usually the better fit for non-interview qualitative designs.
What’s the difference between COREQ/SRQR and ENTREQ?
COREQ and SRQR report a single primary qualitative study. ENTREQ (Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research) reports a synthesis across multiple already-published qualitative studies — a qualitative meta-synthesis or qualitative systematic review. Using COREQ or SRQR for a synthesis paper, or ENTREQ for a primary study, is a mismatch reviewers will flag.
Do I need IRB/ethics approval documentation even if the checklist doesn’t ask for it directly?
Yes — SRQR item 9 asks for it explicitly, and COREQ’s domain 2 items on setting and sampling are typically read alongside a separate ethics-approval statement most journals require regardless of which reporting checklist applies. See research ethics in qualitative research for what that documentation needs to cover.
Where do I find the official checklist templates?
The EQUATOR Network maintains the current, authoritative version of both checklists and links to the original publications; most journals that require COREQ or SRQR link directly to the EQUATOR Network entry or the original journal-published checklist rather than hosting their own copy.
Last verified: August 2026. Item text is summarized from the original COREQ (Tong, Sainsbury & Craig, 2007) and SRQR (O’Brien et al., 2014) publications and the EQUATOR Network’s guideline entries; always confirm against the current EQUATOR Network listing and your target journal’s author guidelines before submission, since journal-specific requirements can change independently of the checklists themselves.
