Interventions through published recommendations or perspective articles are a common practice to advance scientific research and create more reliable output from experimental studies. In 2020, de Ruijter et al. defined quality reporting criteria for microplastic effect studies (with extensions added by Mehinto et al. in 2022). Since then, the number of publications on microplastics effects on organisms and human health-related endpoints has increased exponentially and it is unknown, whether de Ruijter s intervention resulted in effects on study quality in the microplastics community. The Toxicity of Microplastics Explorer (ToMEx) 2.0 database contains quality scores for almost 300 microplastic ecotoxicity studies published through January 2023, including technical quality scores and scores aimed at defining adequacy for use in environmental risk assessments. We used these data to assess whether microplastics study quality has changed over time and how the quality of reporting is associated with the taxonomic group of the test organism and journal impact metrics. We found that most studies reported basic technical aspects like the name of the test species, the polymer type of the particles, particle shape and size and characterstics of the experimental design (e.g., exposure duration, sample size), but information involving more complicated procedures like, for instance, measurements of background contamination, anlytical investigation of the chemical purity of the particles and the verification of exposure were missing more often. In addition, we found that many studies in ToMEx 2.0 did not comply with necessary risk assessment criteria including the testing of aged or biofouled particles or following a proper dose-response design with more than three concentration levels. We show that over the years and by January 2023, study quality according criteria from de Ruijter et al (2020) and Mehinto et al (2022) has not increased. Study quality however correlated slightly with journal impact factors. We further found that research on some taxa achieved higher than average quality scores (Mollusca, Annelida, Crustacea, Hexapoda/Insects) whereas studies on fish received scores lower than average. We emphasize the importance of high quality reporting and test designs and discuss how better reporting practices and knowledge about requirements for risk assessments can contribute to create publications with higher impact on regulation in the future.