Last verified 2026-08-16. Both checklists described here are revised periodically by their publishers — always confirm current requirements against the specific journal’s instructions for authors before submission.
Most life-sciences journals now ask authors to complete a standardized reproducibility checklist alongside the manuscript itself. The two most common are the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary, required at every Nature Portfolio research journal, and the MDAR (Materials Design Analysis Reporting) framework and checklist, developed by a multi-publisher working group and piloted across more than a dozen journals. They cover overlapping ground — statistics, materials, data and code availability — but they are not the same document, are not interchangeable, and a manuscript moving between a Nature Portfolio journal and an MDAR-adopting journal will need a different form filled out each time.
At a Glance: Reporting Summary vs. MDAR Checklist
| Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary | MDAR Checklist | |
|---|---|---|
| Maintained by | Springer Nature, under the Nature Portfolio brand | Originally an eight-organization publisher/funder working group (2017); the Center for Open Science is the framework’s ongoing steward |
| Structure | A common core (statistics, software & code, data) plus one study-design track the author selects: life sciences, behavioural & social sciences, or ecological/evolutionary/environmental sciences, plus a separate materials/methods checklist for items like antibodies, cell lines, and animals | Four sections — Materials, Design, Analysis, Reporting — implemented as a 42-item checklist, with a companion Elaboration document explaining the rationale for each item |
| Where it’s required | Mandatory at every Nature Portfolio research journal (Nature, Nature Communications, Nature Methods, Scientific Reports, and sister titles) | Adopted individually, journal by journal — not a single mandate across all publishers. Confirm with the specific journal’s current author guidelines |
| Made public with the paper | Yes — published alongside the accepted manuscript | Varies by adopting journal |
| “Disclose even if negative” principle | Explicit requirement — e.g., stating that randomization or blinding were not used, with the reasoning, satisfies the field | Built into the framework’s organizing logic (see below), though enforcement is set by each adopting journal |
| Relationship to discipline checklists | References ICMJE guidance and a completed CONSORT checklist for clinical trial data | Designed to sit above field-specific reporting guidelines (ARRIVE, CONSORT, STROBE) rather than replace them |
What Is the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary?
The Reporting Summary is a fillable form Nature Portfolio requires with every research manuscript submission. Its structure has a common core — Statistics, Software and code, and Data — and then branches into exactly one of three field-specific tracks the author selects: Life sciences (sample size justification, data exclusions, replication, randomization, blinding), Behavioural & social sciences (study description, sampling strategy, data collection timing, non-participation, randomization), or Ecological, evolutionary & environmental sciences (the same core fields plus timing/spatial scale, reproducibility, blinding, and a field-work supplement where applicable).
A separate materials and methods checklist covers items that only apply to some papers — antibodies, eukaryotic cell lines, palaeontology and archaeology, animal research, human research participants (referencing ICMJE guidance and a completed CONSORT checklist), dual-use research of concern, plants, ChIP-seq, flow cytometry, and MRI-based neuroimaging — each with its own sub-fields, so a given manuscript typically completes only the sections that apply to it.
Critically, every field requires a substantive answer even when the honest answer is “not done” — a blank field is not equivalent to a disclosed negative. The completed form is used by editors and reviewers during assessment and, if the paper is accepted, published alongside it. It is distinct from a separate internal editorial policy checklist some Nature Portfolio journals use only if a manuscript proceeds to external review; that internal document is not sent to reviewers and is not published. See the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary dictionary entry for the full field-by-field breakdown.
What Is the MDAR Framework and Checklist?
MDAR stands for Materials, Design, Analysis, Reporting — the four categories the framework organizes reporting expectations around. It originated from a working group convened in late 2017 with representatives from eLife, PLOS, Cell Press, Nature Portfolio, John Wiley & Sons, Science/AAAS, and the Center for Open Science, alongside academic leads including Malcolm Macleod of the University of Edinburgh. The group published its rationale and pilot results in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2021 (Macleod et al., “The MDAR (Materials Design Analysis Reporting) Framework for transparent reporting in the life sciences,” PNAS 118(17):e2103238118).
The framework organizes each item around three questions: whether and how the item is accessible (including any access restrictions), whether it can be identified unambiguously (unique designation and provenance), and how it is characterized (the minimum description needed for interpretation and replication). That logic is implemented as a 42-item MDAR Checklist, with a companion Elaboration document that explains the reasoning behind each item so editorial offices can adapt it consistently.
Between 2019 and 2021 the checklist was piloted at thirteen journals and platforms — BMC Microbiology, Ecology and Evolution, eLife, EMBO journals, Epigenetics, F1000Research, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, MicrobiologyOpen, PeerJ, PLOS Biology, PNAS, Science, and Scientific Reports — and the published results reported roughly 80% of corresponding authors and 84% of editorial staff surveyed found it “very” or “somewhat” helpful. Adoption of the exact MDAR checklist as a mandatory submission form has varied by journal since that pilot, and some publishers have since built their own reporting-summary equivalents (Nature Portfolio’s own form among them) rather than requiring the original MDAR document verbatim — so always check the specific journal’s current author guidelines rather than assuming MDAR applies.
How the Two Relate to Each Other and to Discipline-Specific Guidelines
Neither checklist is meant to replace study-type-specific reporting guidelines — they’re a general layer that sits above them. A manuscript reporting a randomized controlled trial, an animal study, or an observational study is still expected to follow the relevant discipline guideline in addition to whichever publisher checklist applies:
- ARRIVE guidelines (ARRIVE 2.0) for in vivo animal research
- CONSORT 2010 for randomized controlled trials
- STROBE (STROBE checklist) for observational studies
- PRISMA 2020 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
The Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary explicitly cross-references CONSORT for clinical data; the MDAR framework was deliberately designed to be compatible with these discipline guidelines rather than duplicate them, since its accessibility/identification/characterization logic applies across study types. Both also connect to the broader reproducibility crisis response in scholarly publishing, alongside related infrastructure such as the TOP Guidelines, journal-level scoring tools like the Rigor and Transparency Index and automated screening tools such as SciScore, and practices like authentication of key resources (e.g., RRIDs for antibodies and cell lines). See methods reproducibility and the NIH Rigor and Reproducibility policy for how these checklists connect to funder-side expectations.
Step-by-Step: Completing a Publisher Reporting Checklist at Submission
- Confirm which checklist your target journal requires. Check the journal’s current “Instructions for Authors” page directly — don’t assume based on publisher, since requirements change and vary title by title within the same publisher.
- Gather the underlying information before opening the form. Sample size justification and any exclusion criteria; randomization and blinding procedures (or the reasoning if neither was used); software, code repository links, and version numbers; unique resource identifiers (RRIDs, catalog/lot numbers) for antibodies, cell lines, and organisms; and statistical test names with the software used to run them.
- Answer every applicable field, including negative disclosures. “Blinding was not performed because X” is a complete, acceptable answer under both frameworks; an unanswered field is not.
- Attach the relevant discipline-specific checklist if your study type requires one — a completed ARRIVE, CONSORT, or STROBE checklist alongside the publisher’s own reporting form, not instead of it.
- Submit the checklist alongside the manuscript file(s). Expect it to be used by editors during initial assessment and by reviewers during peer review, and, for Nature Portfolio journals specifically, published alongside the accepted paper.
Which Checklist Will I Be Asked For?
As a starting rule of thumb: submitting to a Nature Portfolio journal (Nature, Nature Communications, Nature Methods, Scientific Reports, and the other Nature-branded and Nature Research titles) means completing the Reporting Summary — it is a uniform, mandatory requirement across that portfolio. Submitting elsewhere means checking that journal’s own instructions for authors: MDAR or an MDAR-derived checklist was piloted and adopted at journals including eLife, PLOS Biology, EMBO Press titles, PNAS, Science, F1000Research, PeerJ, Ecology and Evolution, MicrobiologyOpen, BMC Microbiology, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, and Epigenetics, but adoption and the exact form used have evolved since that 2019–2021 pilot, so treat that list as a starting point for where to look, not a guarantee of current policy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is MDAR the same thing as the Nature Reporting Summary?
No. They are two separate documents from two separate origins that cover overlapping ground. The Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary is Springer Nature’s own mandatory form for its journals. MDAR is a framework and 42-item checklist originally developed by a separate multi-publisher working group (which included a Nature Portfolio representative among others) and stewarded by the Center for Open Science; it is adopted independently by whichever journals choose to use it.
What does MDAR stand for?
Materials, Design, Analysis, Reporting — the four categories the framework’s checklist items are organized under.
Is the MDAR checklist mandatory at every journal?
No. Unlike the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary, which is uniformly required across Nature Portfolio’s research titles, MDAR is adopted journal by journal. Check the specific journal’s current instructions for authors rather than assuming it applies.
Do I need to complete both a discipline-specific checklist (ARRIVE, CONSORT, STROBE) and a publisher reporting checklist?
Typically yes, when your study type falls under one of those guidelines. The publisher checklist (Reporting Summary or MDAR) is a general layer; discipline-specific guidelines address reporting needs particular to that study design and are usually submitted alongside, not instead of, the publisher’s form.
Is the Reporting Summary published with my paper?
For Nature Portfolio journals, yes — the completed Reporting Summary is made available to editors and reviewers during assessment and published alongside the accepted manuscript. Whether an MDAR checklist is published depends on the individual adopting journal’s policy.
What happens if I leave a field blank instead of disclosing a negative?
Both frameworks are built around disclosure even when the answer is negative — for example, stating that randomization was not used, and why. A blank field is generally treated as incomplete, not as an implicit “no,” and can delay editorial processing.
