ObjectiveThis study aims to explore the application of qualitative research reporting standards in interdisciplinary knowledge production and to propose more adaptable reflexive use strategies, so as to enhance the transparency, credibility, and knowledge translation value of qualitative research reports. MethodsFrom an interdisciplinary perspective, this study compared four representative reporting standards: COREQ, SRQR, ENTREQ, and JARS-Qual, in terms of their applicable scope, core objectives, item structure, and implicit quality orientations. It analyzed practical issues such as checklist thinking, methodological misalignment, and insufficient interdisciplinary adaptation. Drawing on the concept of value-based reporting frameworks, it introduced reflexive adaptation strategies and demonstrates their application pathways through empirical cases. ResultsThe four reporting standards each had their own emphases, but in interdisciplinary applications they tended to lead to mechanical application, methodological misalignment, and inadequate contextual adaptation. The same checklist item carried different meanings across different epistemological orientations and must be understood in light of research paradigms and disciplinary contexts. The value of reporting standards lied not in providing a universal checklist, but in helping researchers clearly articulate the relationships among research design, data generation, analytical pathways, and interpretation of findings. ConclusionQualitative research reporting standards should adopt a reflexive adaptation strategy. Researchers need to make justified choices, translations, and supplements to the standards based on research questions, methodological traditions, data forms, and disciplinary contexts, forming an application pathway of "retain-translate-supplement". This study advocates that researchers, journal editors, and reviewers use reporting standards in a more open, prudently, and methodologically self-aware manner, thereby achieving a dynamic balance between standardization and methodological diversity.