Critical appraisal of the studies included in a systematic review is essential to ensure that results of the review are properly interpreted. Critical appraisal is also one of the most difficult steps in research reviews. Structured risk of bias (ROB) tools can facilitate critical appraisal, but these tools vary in content and structure, and there are unresolved issues in applications of these tools. Assessment of risk of reporting biases, such as outcome reporting bias (ORB) and analysis reporting bias (ARB), is especially difficult, given the lack of availability of the raw materials (such as prospectively registered protocols or analysis plans) needed to properly assess the risk of selective reporting and selective non-reporting of outcomes and analyses. To identify methods used in recent Campbell systematic reviews of intervention effects to assess the risk of selective reporting biases in included studies. We searched the Campbell Library website, using a structured online form developed for this purpose, with filters for publication dates (all dates in 2020 through April 2023) and type of document (completed reviews only). We included systematic reviews (SRs) of primary studies of intervention effects published in Campbell Systematic Reviews between 1 January 2020 and 30 April 2023. Of the 59 SRs published from 2020 through early 2023, 51 were eligible for our review. Forty-nine of these reviews included relevant studies of intervention effects. From these 49 reviews, we extracted data on methods used to assess risk of reporting biases (ORB and ARB), broader risk of bias (ROB) or study quality assessments, and adherence to 12 mandatory methodological standards. Data extraction and coding were performed in duplicate, by pairs of team members who worked independently, and any discrepancies were resolved by coders or by the review team. Results were compiled in a spreadsheet, which was used to generate tables, graphics, and a narrative summary. Reporting biases were defined and assessed in diverse and sometimes idiosyncratic ways in recent Campbell systematic reviews of intervention effects. Most (40 of 49) reviews conducted some structured assessment of reporting biases, but many did not report results of these assessments. Explanation and documentation of ORB and ARB assessments was missing in more than half (28) of the reviews. Only 12 reviews provided full documentation for their ORB/ARB assessments.Overall, we found that reviewers' descriptions of their assessments of reporting biases were often incomplete and inconsistent across studies. In many cases, these assessment practices did not reflect current understanding of the prevalence of selective reporting and ways in which these biases can undermine the validity of and confidence in results of research reviews. This observation is consistent with the fact that most reviews did not consider the potential impacts of risks of bias on the credibility of their results.None of the recent reviews appeared to meet all (12) of the mandatory methodological standards we assessed. On average, these reviews failed to meet 4.9 of these standards (SD = 2.3); almost three-quarters (35) of the reviews failed to meet four or more standards. Recent Campbell reviews did not consistently appraise or document risks of reporting biases in the studies they included. Assessment of risk of reporting biases is difficult, given the lack of availability of prospective, public protocols or analysis plans for most studies.Reviewers' failure to adhere to Campbell's mandatory methodological standards and editors' apparent inability to enforce these standards can be understood as functions of the contexts in which systematic reviews are highly desirable, highly cited, and under-resourced.We provide a decision tree to guide reviewers' assessments of reporting bias, along with nine recommendations for improving these practices in systematic reviews of intervention effects. Our recommendations include more deliberate use of eligibility criteria to eliminate studies that cannot provide valid answers to review questions, thorough documentation of reviewers' assessment processes and ROB ratings, and explicit use of ROB ratings in interpretation of results. Campbell systematic reviews often lack clear assessment of selective reporting bias The review in brief: Many recent Campbell systematic reviews do not clearly or consistently assess or report selective reporting bias, which limits confidence in review findings. What is this review about? Systematic reviews synthesize evidence from multiple studies to inform policy, practice, and future research. The credibility of these reviews depends in part on whether included studies report results fully and transparently. Selective reporting bias occurs when researchers report some outcomes or analyses but not others, often favoring statistically significant or positive results. This includes outcome reporting bias, where some measured outcomes are not reported, and analysis reporting bias, where only selected analyses are reported. These practices can distort the evidence base and may lead to biased conclusions in systematic reviews. This review examines how recent Campbell systematic reviews of intervention effects assess the risk of selective reporting bias in included studies. It also examines whether these reviews adhere to Campbell’s mandatory methodological standards related to risk of bias. What is the aim of this review? This Campbell systematic review examines methods used to assess selective reporting bias in Campbell systematic reviews of intervention effects. The review summarizes evidence from 51 Campbell systematic reviews published between January 2020 and April 2023, including 49 reviews that included studies of intervention effects. What are the main findings of this review? What studies are included? The review includes Campbell systematic reviews from several coordinating groups, including crime and justice, social welfare, education, and international development. Most reviews include both randomized and non-randomized studies. Reporting of methods and results varies considerably across reviews. Do Campbell reviews assess selective reporting bias? Most reviews include some assessment of selective reporting bias. However, approaches vary widely. About one in five reviews do not assess selective reporting bias at all. When selective reporting is assessed, fewer than one-third of reviews provide complete documentation to support judgments. How well is selective reporting bias assessed and documented? Descriptions of how selective reporting bias is assessed are often incomplete or unclear. Many reviews do not explain how judgments are made, do not clearly distinguish selective reporting from other sources of bias, or do not use study protocols or analysis plans to inform assessments. In some cases, a lack of evidence of selective reporting is treated as evidence that selective reporting is unlikely. Do reviews meet Campbell methodological standards? None of the reviews meet all mandatory Campbell methodological standards examined. On average, reviews fail to meet nearly five of 12 required standards related to assessment of reporting biases. Common shortcomings include limited documentation of risk-of-bias judgments, use of overall quality scores rather than domain-specific assessments, and limited or no consideration of how risk of bias may affect review findings. What do the findings of this review mean? Inconsistent assessment and reporting of selective reporting bias reduce confidence in the findings of many systematic reviews. Clearer methods, better documentation, and more consistent use of study protocols could strengthen assessments of selective reporting bias. The review identifies examples of good practice and provides guidance to support more transparent and rigorous assessments in future systematic reviews. How up-to-date is this review? The review authors searched for studies published up to April 2023 . This Campbell Systematic Review was published in 2026. Note: the first draft of this summary was generated by ChatGPT (version GPT 5.2 Instant, January 20, 2026, OpenAI, https://chat.openai.com) then edited by the authors.