Do Registered Reports Make Scientific Findings More Believable to the Public?

Abstract

Registered reports are an important initiative to improve the methodological rigor and transparency of scientific studies. One possible benefit of registered reports is that they may increase public acceptance of controversial research findings. We test this question by providing participants in a large US-based sample (n = 1,500) with descriptions of the key features of registered reports and the standard peer-review process, and then eliciting credibility judgments for various scientific results. We do not find evidence that participants view findings from registered reports as more credible than findings conducted under a standard (non-registered) report. This was true for both plausible and implausible study findings. Our results help clarify public attitudes and beliefs about scientific findings in light of recent methodological developments.

How to communicate science to the public? Recommendations for effective written communication derived from a systematic review

“…Similarly, suggests that arguments containing more negative comments were rated as stronger than arguments containing fewer negative outcomes. While one study suggests that plausible study findings increase credibility more than findings that seem implausible (Costa et al, 2022), another study did not find significant differences in credibility ratings or perceived argument strength depending on whether a plausibility-signaling qualifier ("probably") was included or not (Thiebach et al, 2015). Thus, while readers might expect a certain consensus and plausibility, they also are aware of science being probabilistic and do not want to be presented with stories that sound too good to be true.…”

“…Regarding the use of registered reports, evidence is so far mixed; it is thus unclear whether highlighting that a study was conducted as a registered report positively affects credibility or has no impact; in any case, effects for highlighting this specific Open Science practice seem to be very small (Costa et al, 2022). Furthermore, once trust was reduced through learning about replicability issues, attempts to reinstate trust through highlighting recent improvements in replicability were unsuccessful .…”

Supporting study registration to reduce research waste

“…Further benefits to researchers are discussed elsewhere and include reduced workload down the line (e.g. when reporting the study methodology), greater transparency, searching and refining ideas, networking, and promoting trust within the community [49][50][51][52] . Registration could also potentiate sounder funding allocation, and savings in financial, human, and time resources (e.g.…”