This study examines reliability reporting in content analysis articles (N = 672) in three flagship communication journals. Data from 1985 to 2014 suggest improvements in reporting across time and also identify areas for additional improvement. Data show increased reporting of chance-corrected reliability coefficients and reporting reliability for all study variables, although increases were inconsistent among journals and the most recent time period showed slight declines. In general, the most often used coefficient was Scott’s Pi; however, Krippendorff’s Alpha was most used in the latest study period. Reporting of low reliability coefficients increased but then decreased most recently. Implications and areas for improvement are discussed.