IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v34y2025iprvaf046..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Clarity Ledger for Evaluation and Applied Research Reporting (CLEAR-R)

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth-Rose Ahearn
  • Christine Ablaza
  • Rose-Marie Stambe
  • Cameron Parsell

Abstract

This research note presents the original development of the 11-item Clarity Ledger for Evaluation and Applied Research Reporting (CLEAR-R), a tool created to improve transparency and consistency in applied research reporting. The creation of CLEAR-R was prompted by a systematic review, now published elsewhere, of applied social science research reports. During this review, we identified that the clarity and transparency of the research reports was insufficient to allow consistent application of any existing quality or risk of bias tools to the sample. Additionally, the frequent use of mixed-methods research in applied studies necessitates a tool capable of appraising diverse methodological approaches. Therefore, the CLEAR-R is designed to support two levels of evidence appraisal and use. First, it helps lay readers assess the transparency of applied research reports. Second, it enables academic researchers to determine whether a report provides enough detail to support a formal appraisal of quality or bias. Through this, we also aim to encourage better reporting practices and promote greater transparency among authors. The following research note documents the rationale, development, and testing of the CLEAR-R.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth-Rose Ahearn & Christine Ablaza & Rose-Marie Stambe & Cameron Parsell, 2025. "The Clarity Ledger for Evaluation and Applied Research Reporting (CLEAR-R)," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 34, pages 1-046..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf046.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvaf046
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf046.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.