All Solutions
Primary
Secondary
Preregistration is a publicly documented research plan (for example, questions, hypotheses, data collection plan, and analysis plan) that is registered before data collection starts, before viewing the data if working with pre-existing data or before research results are known. This can be done by storing the study plan in a (commonly read-only) public repository, such as Open Science Framework (OSF) Registries (https://help.osf.io/article/145-preregistration) or the National Library of Medicine’s Clinical Trials Registry (https://clinicaltrials. gov/). Researchers can make preregistration publicly accessible immediately or after an embargo period. Read more in 1) Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C. & Mellor, D. T. The preregistration revolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2600–2606 (2018). 2) Rice, D. B. & Moher, D. Curtailing the use of preregistration: a misused term. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 14, 1105–1108 (2019). 3) Hardwicke, T. E. & Wagenmakers, E.-J. Reducing bias, increasing transparency and calibrating confidence with preregistration. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7, 15–26 (2023).
Pre-registration:
SupportEvidence:
Medicine: several large-scale studies in medicine have shown that published studies that were previously registered are of higher methodological quality, have more complete reporting of methods, and have results that less often support the hypothesis, are significant, or large. Pre-registration has also been shown to increase the availability of results (many results are only published in a registry, but not in a journal). The overview of these studies can be found in https://rdcu.be/dJYor (Purgar, M., Glasziou, P., Klanjscek, T. et al. Supporting study registration to reduce research waste. Nat Ecol Evol 8, 1391–1399 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02433-5) Psychology: Two meta-studies have shown that published studies that were pre-registered have smaller effect sizes that non-registered studies. 1) Kvarven, A., Strømland, E. & Johannesson, M. Comparing meta-analyses and preregistered multiple-laboratory replication projects. Nat Hum Behav 4, 423–434 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0787-z 2) Schäfer, T. & Schwarz, M. A. The meaningfulness of efect sizes in psychological research: diferences between sub-disciplines and the impact of potential biases. Front. Psychol. 10, 813 (2019).Pre-registration platforms are repositories where pre-registrations are deposited before the research is conducted. Ideally, they should also allow for: 1) submitting the results of the study after it has been conducted or adding the reasons for a failure of the study; 2) linking to other related resources (e.g. datasets, publications); 3) search for registered study without the registries, but also via other sources (e.g. WoS). Examples include discipline-specific registries such as https://www.isrctn.com/ or https://clinicaltrials.gov/; and general-purpose ones, such as https://www.cos.io/products/osf-registries.
Evidence:
TBAPre-registration should be made possible by developing registration templates. The could be specific to a certain research area, or research design. They can also include options for modular (sequential) registration where not all stages of research have to be registered at the same time.
Evidence:
TBAJournals should introduce registered reports as an article type. Here, the review of the intended study happens before the study is conducted, and after the study is conducted. Thus, the review process is slightly different than for a 'classical' manuscript. For journals that introduce registered reports, it is important that: 1) The handling time for the Stage 1 review is clear and relatively short, as the research cannot start before the review is finished. Further, making review time for registered reports shorter than for a classical article can further encourage the authors to submit registered reprots 2) The registered reports policy is explicit and defines the exact type of contribution that would be accepted as registered reports. While many journals offer registered reports for experimental research only, other types of research, such as observational studies or systematic reviews and meta-analyses are also suitable for this format
Evidence:
Not relevantThe registered report is a publication format where a study’s design and methods undergo stage 1 peer review by a journal. This review happens before data collection, or data access and analysis if working on already collected data. Upon passing stage 1 peer review and completion of the research, the final article with results and discussion undergoes stage 2 peer review. The acceptance of a registered report depends on the relevance of the research topic, the thorough development of the research questions/hypotheses, and the robustness of the methodological approach, rather than the results obtained. This format promotes methodological rigor, helps to reduce publication bias and enhances transparency. Read more on registered reports in 1) Chambers, C. D. & Tzavella, L. The past, present and future of registered reports. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 29–42 (2022). 2. Henderson, E. L. & Chambers, C. D. Ten simple rules for writing a Registered Report. PLoS Comput. Biol. 18, e1010571 (2022).
Pre-registration:
Evidence:
Psychology: several large-scale meta-studies in psychology have shown that, compared to 'classical' published articles, registered reports have higher methodological quality, have more complete reporting of methods, and have results that less often support the hypothesis, are significant, or large. Registered reports also decrease publication bias and increase the availability of results, as a study is published regardless of the features of the results. The overview of these studies can be found in https://rdcu.be/dJYor (Purgar, M., Glasziou, P., Klanjscek, T. et al. Supporting study registration to reduce research waste. Nat Ecol Evol 8, 1391–1399 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02433-5) Medicine (biomedicine): One meta-study showed that results of registered reports are less often in the expected directions compared to the results in the standard literature. Allen C, Mehler DMA (2019) Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond. PLOS Biology 17(5): e3000246. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246Open data are data that are available to others to reuse. Open data should follow FAIR principles - be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable, both to machines and humans. Open data can mitigate several issues related to the inefficiencies in the research life cycle 1) even if the study was not published, the data can be published and thus of use to others 2) for studies that apply incorrect analysis, open data can be used for applying a correct analysis 3) for under-reported results, open data can help to understand the missing values either directly (e.g. sample size) or via re-analysis (e.g. effect size not reported) 4) open data can ensure wider accessibility of a study that is itself not open access, can be used within evidence synthesis, or for another purpose that increases the chances that a study reaches the intended audience
Pre-registration: