This paper provides a comprehensive strategy for developing health research reporting guidelines. The authors emphasize the importance of improving the quality and transparency of health research reporting, which is often inadequate in many journals. They propose a working definition of a reporting guideline as a checklist, flow diagram, or explicit text to guide authors in reporting a specific type of research, developed using explicit methodology. A consensus process should be a crucial characteristic of developing a reporting guideline. The paper outlines 18 steps in five phases for developing a reporting guideline. The initial steps include identifying the need for a guideline, reviewing the literature, and obtaining funding. Pre-meeting activities involve identifying participants, conducting a Delphi exercise, and generating a list of items for consideration at the face-to-face meeting. The face-to-face meeting itself involves presenting and discussing results of pre-meeting activities, discussing the development of a flow diagram, discussing strategy for producing documents, and discussing knowledge translation strategy. Post-meeting activities include developing the guidance statement, developing an explanatory document (E&E), developing a publication strategy, seeking and dealing with feedback and criticism, encouraging guideline endorsement, supporting adherence to the guideline, evaluating the impact of the reporting guidance, developing a website, translating the guideline, and updating the guideline. The authors also discuss the importance of translating the guideline into different languages and updating it as needed. The paper concludes by emphasizing the importance of developing and implementing reporting guidelines to improve the quality and transparency of health research reporting. It also highlights the need for ongoing evaluation and improvement of these guidelines to ensure they remain relevant and effective. The authors recommend that guideline developers seek feedback and criticism from all stakeholders and encourage the use of reporting guidelines in educational courses and research applications. They also suggest that funders may require prospective applicants to use some parts of an "approved" reporting guideline when developing their research application.This paper provides a comprehensive strategy for developing health research reporting guidelines. The authors emphasize the importance of improving the quality and transparency of health research reporting, which is often inadequate in many journals. They propose a working definition of a reporting guideline as a checklist, flow diagram, or explicit text to guide authors in reporting a specific type of research, developed using explicit methodology. A consensus process should be a crucial characteristic of developing a reporting guideline. The paper outlines 18 steps in five phases for developing a reporting guideline. The initial steps include identifying the need for a guideline, reviewing the literature, and obtaining funding. Pre-meeting activities involve identifying participants, conducting a Delphi exercise, and generating a list of items for consideration at the face-to-face meeting. The face-to-face meeting itself involves presenting and discussing results of pre-meeting activities, discussing the development of a flow diagram, discussing strategy for producing documents, and discussing knowledge translation strategy. Post-meeting activities include developing the guidance statement, developing an explanatory document (E&E), developing a publication strategy, seeking and dealing with feedback and criticism, encouraging guideline endorsement, supporting adherence to the guideline, evaluating the impact of the reporting guidance, developing a website, translating the guideline, and updating the guideline. The authors also discuss the importance of translating the guideline into different languages and updating it as needed. The paper concludes by emphasizing the importance of developing and implementing reporting guidelines to improve the quality and transparency of health research reporting. It also highlights the need for ongoing evaluation and improvement of these guidelines to ensure they remain relevant and effective. The authors recommend that guideline developers seek feedback and criticism from all stakeholders and encourage the use of reporting guidelines in educational courses and research applications. They also suggest that funders may require prospective applicants to use some parts of an "approved" reporting guideline when developing their research application.