In 2012, in a review of the methods and results reporting of more than 200 fMRI papers the author found that "Although many journals urge authors to describe their methods to a level of detail such that independent investigators can fully reproduce their efforts, the results described here suggest that few studies meet this criterion."
A few years ago, in order to improve reproducibility in f/MRI research, the Committee on Best Practices in Data Analysis and Sharing (COBIDAS) of OHBM released a report to promote best practices for methods and results reporting. This was recently followed by a similar initiative for EEG and MEG.
Contrary to what the most optimistic people might have thought, these guidelines do not seem to have been widely adopted and anecdotal evidence (see that twitter poll and thread) suggests that, even among people who know about the report, few of them use it to write or review papers.
A recent survey from ISMRM seems to suggest that the lack of method details is big problem in MRI research in general but also that there seems to be little knowledge of the existence of the COBIDAS report outside of some circles.
One possible reason for this might be the unwieldy nature of the report. Anticipating this issue, the authors of the guidelines included a checklist (Appendix D) that still ended up taking almost 30 of the 70 pages of the whole document. Anyone who has used this checklist tends to agree that it is a great resource but that it is a bit cumbersome to interpret and apply.
So the goal of this project is to facilitate the use of this checklist. But, if done right, this could also in the long term enhance the adoption of emerging neuroimaging standards (BIDS, fMRIprep, NIDM...), facilitate data sharing and pre-registration, help with peer-review...