Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

The past, present and future of Registered Reports

Nature Human Behaviour volume 6, pages 29–42 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Registered Reports are a form of empirical publication in which study proposals are peer reviewed and pre-accepted before research is undertaken. By deciding which articles are published based on the question, theory and methods, Registered Reports offer a remedy for a range of reporting and publication biases. Here, we reflect on the history, progress and future prospects of the Registered Reports initiative and offer practical guidance for authors, reviewers and editors. We review early evidence that Registered Reports are working as intended, while at the same time acknowledging that they are not a universal solution for irreproducibility. We also consider how the policies and practices surrounding Registered Reports are changing, or must change in the future, to address limitations and adapt to new challenges. We conclude that Registered Reports are promoting reproducibility, transparency and self-correction across disciplines and may help reshape how society evaluates research and researchers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The basics of RRs.
Fig. 2: Key milestones in the evolution of RRs.
Fig. 3: RRs and ethics approval.
Fig. 4: Proposed scheduled review workflow for RRs.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vazire, S. Implications of the credibility revolution for productivity, creativity, and progress: Perspect. Psychol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617751884 (2018).

  2. Munafò, M. R. et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0021 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Reproducibility and Reliability of Biomedical Research: Improving Research Practice (The Academy of Medical Sciences, 2015); https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/38189-56531416e2949.pdf

  4. Fanelli, D. “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE 5, e10068 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Franco, A., Malhotra, N. & Simonovits, G. Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer. Science 345, 1502–1505 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Harrison, J. S., Banks, G. C., Pollack, J. M., O’Boyle, E. H. & Short, J. Publication bias in strategic management research. J. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314535438 (2014).

  7. Jennions, M. D. & Møller, A. P. Publication bias in ecology and evolution: an empirical assessment using the ‘trim and fill’ method. Biol. Rev. 77, 211–222 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kerr, N. L. HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2, 196–217 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bruns, S. B. & Ioannidis, J. P. A. p-Curve and p-Hacking in observational research. PLoS ONE 11, e0149144 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Khan, M. J. & Trønnes, P. C. p-Hacking in experimental audit research. Behav. Res. Account. 31, 119–131 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Holman, L., Head, M. L., Lanfear, R. & Jennions, M. D. Evidence of experimental bias in the life sciences: why we need blind data recording. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002190 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Fiedler, K. & Schwarz, N. Questionable research practices revisited. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 7, 45–52 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rabelo, A. L. A. et al. Questionable research practices among Brazilian psychological researchers: results from a replication study and an international comparison. Int. J. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12632 (2019).

  14. Fraser, H., Parker, T., Nakagawa, S., Barnett, A. & Fidler, F. Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution. PLoS ONE 13, e0200303 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G. & Prelec, D. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol. Sci. 23, 524–532 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Button, K. S. et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 14, 365–376 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wicherts, J. M., Borsboom, D., Kats, J. & Molenaar, D. The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. Am. Psychol. 61, 726–728 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mueller-Langer, F., Fecher, B., Harhoff, D. & Wagner, G. G. Replication studies in economics—how many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why? Res. Policy 48, 62–83 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A. & Hegarty, B. Replications in psychology research: how often do they really occur? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7, 537–542 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Camerer, C. F. et al. Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science 351, 1433–1436 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Davis, R. J. et al. Reproducibility project: cancer biology. eLife https://elifesciences.org/collections/9b1e83d1/reproducibility-project-cancer-biology (2014).

  22. Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349, aac4716 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R. & Motyl, M. Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7, 615–631 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Feynman, R. P. Cargo cult science. Eng. Sci. 37, 10–13 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Johnson, J. A. Are research psychologists more like detectives or lawyers? Psychol. Today http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cui-bono/201307/are-research-psychologists-more-detectives-or-lawyers-0 (2013).

  26. Bem, D. J. In The Compleat Academic: A Practical Guide for the Beginning Social Scientist (eds Zanna, M. P. & Darley, J. M.) Ch. 8 (Lawerence Erlbaum, 1987).

  27. Bem, D. J. In The Compleat Academic: A Career Guide 2nd edn (eds Darley, J. M. et al.) Ch. 10 (American Psychological Association, 2003).

  28. Fiske, S. T. In The Sage Handbook of Methods in Social Psychology (eds Sansone, C. et al.) Ch. 4 (SAGE, 2003).

  29. Sanes, J. R. Tell me a story. eLife 8, e50527 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Bakker, M., van Dijk, A. & Wicherts, J. M. The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7, 543–554 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Grand, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Banks, G. C., Landis, R. S. & Tonidandel, S. From outcome to process focus: fostering a more robust psychological science through Registered Reports and results—blind reviewing. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13, 448–456 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Eich, E. PSCI Initiatives for 2013. https://groups.google.com/group/openscienceframework/attach/8e518ad385b642e5/PSCI%20Initiatives%20for%202013%20%2820121008%29.docx?part=0.1 (2012).

  33. Chambers, C. Changing the culture of scientific publishing from within. NeuroChambers (8 October 2021); https://neurochambers.blogspot.com/2012/10/changing-culture-of-scientific.html

  34. Simons, D. J. Registered Replication Reports—Stay Tuned! Daniel Simons Blog (13 May 2013); http://blog.dansimons.com/2013/05/registered-replication-reports-stay.html

  35. Nosek, B. A. & Lakens, D. Call for proposals: special issue of social psychology on “replications of important results in social psychology”. Soc. Psychol. 44, 59–60 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Chambers, C. D. Registered Reports: a new publishing initiative at Cortex. Cortex 49, 609–610 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Peirce, C. S. Illustrations of the logic of science VI: deduction, induction, and hypothesis. Pop. Sci. Monthly 13, 470–482 (1878).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wagenmakers, E.-J., Dutilh, G. & Sarafoglou, A. The creativity–verification cycle in psychological science: new methods to combat old Iidols. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13, 418–427 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Rosenthal, R. Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research (Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966).

  40. Weiss, D. J. An experiment in publication: advance publication review. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 13, 1–7 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kupfersmid, J. Improving what is published: a model in search of an editor. Am. Psychol. 43, 635–642 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Newcombe, R. G. Towards a reduction in publication bias. Br. Med J. Clin. Res. Ed. 295, 656–659 (1987).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Mahoney, M. J. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cogn. Ther. Res. 1, 161–175 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Walster, G. W. & Cleary, T. A. A proposal for a new editorial policy in the social sciences. Am. Stat. 24, 16–19 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wiseman, R., Watt, C. & Kornbrot, D. Registered Reports: an early example and analysis. PeerJ 7, e6232 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. The Editors of the Lancet. Protocol review at The Lancet: 1997–2015. Lancet 386, 2456–2457 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Maizey, L. & Tzavella, L. Barriers and solutions for early career researchers in tackling the reproducibility crisis in cognitive neuroscience. Cortex 113, 357–359 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Allen, C. & Mehler, D. M. A. Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000246 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. & Lakens, D. An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard Psychology literature with Registered Reports. Adv. Meth. Pract. Psychol. Sci. 4, 1–12 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wicherts, J. M., Bakker, M. & Molenaar, D. Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PLoS ONE 6, e26828 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Obels, P., Lakens, D., Coles, N. A., Gottfried, J. & Green, S. A. Analysis of open data and computational reproducibility in Registered Reports in psychology. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fk8vh (2019).

  52. Hardwicke, T. E. et al. Data availability, reusability, and analytic reproducibility: evaluating the impact of a mandatory open data policy at the journal Cognition. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5, 180448 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Jannot, A.-S., Agoritsas, T., Gayet-Ageron, A. & Perneger, T. V. Citation bias favoring statistically significant studies was present in medical research. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 66, 296–301 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Misemer, B. S., Platts-Mills, T. F. & Jones, C. W. Citation bias favoring positive clinical trials of thrombolytics for acute ischemic stroke: a cross-sectional analysis. Trials 17, 473 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Brembs, B., Button, K. & Munafò, M. Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7, 291 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G. & Casadevall, A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 17028–17033 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Lozano, G. A., Larivière, V. & Gingras, Y. The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers’ citations in the digital age. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63, 2140–2145 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Seglen, P. O. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314, 498–502 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Hummer, L., Thorn, F. S., Nosek, B. A. & Errington, T. Evaluating Registered Reports: a naturalistic comparative study of article impact. Preprint at OSF https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/5y8w7 (2017).

  60. Soderberg, C. K. et al. Initial evidence of research quality of Registered Reports compared with the standard publishing model. Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4 (2021).

  61. Button, K. S., Bal, L., Clark, A. & Shipley, T. Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review. BMC Psychol. 4, 59 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Srivastava, S. A Pottery Barn rule for scientific journals. The Hardest Science (27 September 2012); https://thehardestscience.com/2012/09/27/a-pottery-barn-rule-for-scientific-journals/

  63. Lilienfeld, S. O. Clinical psychological science: then and now. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 5, 3–13 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Lucas, R. E. & Donnellan, M. B. Enhancing transparency and openness at the Journal of Research in Personality. J. Res. Personal. 68, 1–4 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Anonymous. Preregistered direct replications: a new article type in psychological science. APS Obs. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/preregistered-direct-replications-a-new-article-type-in-psychological-science (2017).

  66. Replication Studies (Royal Society Open Science, 2021); https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsos/replication-studies

  67. Reproducibility and Transparency Collection (The Royal Society, 2021); https://royalsocietypublishing.org/topic/special-collections/rsos-reproducibility

  68. Murray, H. Transparency meets transparency. F1000 Blogs (12 October 2017); https://blog.f1000.com/2017/10/12/transparency-meets-transparency/

  69. Carlsson, R. et al. Inaugural editorial of Meta-Psychology. Meta-Psychol. 1, a1001 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Kiyonaga, A. & Scimeca, J. M. Practical considerations for navigating Registered Reports. Trends Neurosci. 42, 568–572 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Guest, O. & Martin, A. E. How computational modeling can force theory building in psychological science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970585 (2021).

  72. Schönbrodt, F. D. & Wagenmakers, E.-J. Bayes factor design analysis: planning for compelling evidence. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 25, 128–142 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Nosek, B. A. et al. Promoting an open research culture. Science 348, 1422–1425 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. For Authors (BMJ Open Science, 2021); https://openscience.bmj.com/pages/authors/

  75. Exploratory Reports at IRSP: Guidelines for Authors (International Review of Social Psychology, 2021); http://www.rips-irsp.com/about/exploratory-reports/

  76. McIntosh, R. D. Exploratory reports: a new article type for Cortex. Cortex 96, A1–A4 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Hardwicke, T. E. & Ioannidis, J. P. A. Mapping the universe of Registered Reports. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 793–796 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Chambers, C. D. & Mellor, D. T. Protocol transparency is vital for Registered Reports. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 791–792 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Center for Open Science: Template Reviewer and Author Guidelines (Open Science Framework, 2018); https://osf.io/8mpji/

  80. OSF Registries (OSF, 2021); https://osf.io/registries/discover?provider=OSF&type=Registered%20Report%20Protocol%20Preregistration

  81. Tiokhin, L., Morgan, T. & Yan, M. Competition for priority and the cultural evolution of research strategies. Preprint at MetaArXiv https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/x4t7q (2020).

  82. Chambers, C. Calling all scientists: rapid evaluation of COVID19-related Registered Reports at Royal Society Open Science. NeuroChambers (16 March 2020); http://neurochambers.blogspot.com/2020/03/calling-all-scientists-rapid-evaluation.html

  83. Zhou, T., Nguyen, T. T., Zhong, J. & Liu, J. A COVID-19 descriptive study of life after lockdown in Wuhan, China. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 200705 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Weinstein, N. & Nguyen, T.-V. Motivation and preference in isolation: a test of their different influences on responses to self-isolation during the COVID-19 outbreak. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 200458 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Khan, K. A. & Cheung, P. Presence of mismatches between diagnostic PCR assays and coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 genome. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 200636 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Riello, M., Purgato, M., Bove, C., MacTaggart, D. & Rusconi, E. Prevalence of post-traumatic symptomatology and anxiety among residential nursing and care home workers following the first COVID-19 outbreak in Northern Italy. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 200880 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Lieberoth, A. et al. Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic: relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8, 200589 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Yonemitsu, F. et al. Warning ‘don’t spread’ versus ‘don’t be a spreader’ to prevent the COVID-19 pandemic. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 200793 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. PLoS ONE Editors. PLoS ONE partners with the Children’s Tumor Foundation to trial Registered Reports. EveryONE: The PLoS ONE blog (26 September 2017); https://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2017/09/26/registered-reports-with-ctf/

  90. Munafò, M. R. Improving the efficiency of grant and journal peer review: Registered Reports funding. Nicotine Tob. Res. 19, 773–773 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Lakens, D. & DeBruine, L. Improving transparency, falsifiability, and rigour by making hypothesis tests machine readable. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5xcda (2020).

  92. Mellor, D. & DeHaven, A. Templates of OSF Registration Forms (OSF, 2016); https://osf.io/zab38/

  93. Wicherts, J. M. et al. Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: a checklist to avoid p-hacking. Front. Psychol. 7, 1832 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Mathieu, S., Boutron, I., Moher, D., Altman, D. G. & Ravaud, P. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 302, 977–984 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Gopal, A. D. et al. Adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ (ICMJE) prospective registration policy and implications for outcome integrity: a cross-sectional analysis of trials published in high-impact specialty society journals. Trials 19, 448 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Goldacre, B. et al. Tracking switched outcomes in clinical trials. COMPare http://compare-trials.org (2016).

  97. Ramagopalan, S. V. et al. Funding source and primary outcome changes in clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov are associated with the reporting of a statistically significant primary outcome: a cross-sectional study. F1000Research 4, 80 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Goldacre, B. et al. Compliance with requirement to report results on the EU Clinical Trials Register: cohort study and web resource. BMJ 362, k3218 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Chen, R. et al. Publication and reporting of clinical trial results: cross sectional analysis across academic medical centers. BMJ 352, i637 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. The BMC Medicine Team. BMC Medicine becomes the first medical journal to accept Registered Reports. Research in Progress Blog (24 August 2017); http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2017/08/24/bmc-medicine-becomes-the-first-medical-journal-to-accept-registered-reports/

  101. Panel Criteria and Working Methods (Research Excellence Framework, 2019); https://www.ref.ac.uk/media/1084/ref-2019_02-panel-criteria-and-working-methods.pdf

  102. Munafò, M. Raising research quality will require collective action. Nature 576, 183–183 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. UCL Statement on Transparency in Research (University College London, 2019); https://www.ucl.ac.uk/research/sites/research/files/ucl_statement_on_transparency_in_research_november_20191.pdf

  104. Rousselet, G. A., Hazell, G., Cooke, A. & Dalley, J. W. Promoting and supporting credibility in neuroscience. Brain Neurosci. Adv. 3, 2398212819844167 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. British Psychological Society. We’re offering Registered Reports across all eleven of our academic journals. BPS News (13 July 2018); https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/were-offering-registered-reports-across-all-eleven-our-academic-journals

  106. Stiftelsen Dam. Krav om forhåndregistrering av studier finansiert av Stiftelsen Dam. Stiftelsen Dam (9 November 2018); https://dam.no/krav-om-forhandsregistrering-av-studier-finansiert-av-stiftelsen-dam/

  107. Accelerating Research on Consciousness (Templeton World Charity Foundation, 2021); https://www.templetonworldcharity.org/our-priorities/accelerating-research-consciousness

  108. Heycke, T., Aust, F. & Stahl, C. Subliminal influence on preferences? A test of evaluative conditioning for brief visual conditioned stimuli using auditory unconditioned stimuli. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 160935 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Ait Ouares, K., Beurrier, C., Canepari, M., Laverne, G. & Kuczewski, N. Opto nongenetics inhibition of neuronal firing. Eur. J. Neurosci. 49, 6–26 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Sassenhagen, J. & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. The P600 as a correlate of ventral attention network reorientation. Cortex 66, A3–A20 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Allinson, M. Royal Society Open Science launches Registered Reports. The Royal Society Blog (27 November 2015); https://web.archive.org/web/20160702062134/https://blogs.royalsociety.org/publishing/registered-reports/

  112. Nosek, B. A. & Errington, T. M. Reproducibility in cancer biology: making sense of replications. eLife 6, e23383 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Guo, W., Del Vecchio, M. & Pogrebna, G. Global network centrality of university rankings. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 171172 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. [No authors listed]. Promoting reproducibility with Registered Reports. Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0034 (2017).

  115. MacCoun, R. & Perlmutter, S. Blind analysis: hide results to seek the truth. Nature 526, 187–189 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Dutilh, G. et al. A test of the diffusion model explanation for the worst performance rule using preregistration and blinding. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 79, 713–725 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. Dienes, Z. Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Front. Psychol. 5, 781 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Lakens, D. Equivalence tests: a practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 8, 355–362 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Preregistered Research Article Guidelines for Authors (PLoS Biology, 2020); https://plos-marketing.s3.amazonaws.com/Marketing/Biology+Preregistered+Articles+Guidelines+for+Authors.pdf

  120. Registered Reports: Author and Reviewer Guidelines (Nature Human Behaviour, 2021); https://media.nature.com/original/nature-cms/uploads/ckeditor/attachments/4127/RegisteredReportsGuidelines_NatureHumanBehaviour.pdf

  121. Guidelines for Reviewers (Cortex, 2013); https://cdn.elsevier.com/promis_misc/PROMIS%20pub_idt_CORTEX%20Guidelines_RR_29_04_2013.pdf

  122. Royal Society Open Science. Registered Reports (The Royal Society, 2021); https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsos/registered-reports#ReviewerGuideRegRep

  123. Registered Reports: Resources for Editors (Center for Open Science, 2021); https://cos.io/rr/

  124. Petticrew, M. et al. Publication bias in qualitative research: what becomes of qualitative research presented at conferences? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 62, 552–554 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Piñeiro, R. & Rosenblatt, F. Pre-analysis plans for qualitative research. Rev. Cienc. Política 36, 785–796 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  126. Kern, F. G. & Gleditsch, K. S. Exploring pre-registration and pre-analysis plans for qualitative inference. Preprint at ResearchGate https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14428.69769 (2017).

  127. Haven, T. L. & Grootel, D. L. V. Preregistering qualitative research. Account. Res. 26, 229–244 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Hartman, A., Kern, F. & Mellor, D. Preregistration for Qualitative Research Template (OSF, 2018); https://osf.io/j7ghv/

  129. Mehlenbacher, A. R. Registered Reports: genre evolution and the research article. Writ. Commun. 36, 38–67 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. DeHaven, A. C. et al. Registered Reports: views from editors, reviewers and authors. Preprint at MetaArXiv https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/ndvek (2019).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to D. Mellor, B. Nosek and the Center for Open Science for their ongoing collaboration and discussion, to A. O’Mahony for the collation of key statistics concerning published RRs, and to the many authors, reviewers and editors who have supported the RR initiative.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre (CUBRIC), School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

    Christopher D. Chambers & Loukia Tzavella

Authors
  1. Christopher D. Chambers
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Loukia Tzavella
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher D. Chambers.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

C.D.C. is a member of the Advisory Board of Nature Human Behaviour, is chair of the RRs committee supported by the Center for Open Science, is a co-founder of Peer Community in Registered Reports, and currently serves as RR editor at BMJ Open Science, Cortex, European Journal of Neuroscience, NeuroImage, Neuroimage: Reports, PLoS Biology and Royal Society Open Science.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Human Behaviour thanks Bert Bakker and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–3, Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Note.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chambers, C.D., Tzavella, L. The past, present and future of Registered Reports. Nat Hum Behav 6, 29–42 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01193-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01193-7

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing