Moving Sport and Exercise Science Forward: A Call for the Adoption of More Transparent Research Practices

Abstract

The primary means for disseminating sport and exercise science research is currently through journal articles. However, not all studies, especially those with null findings, make it to formal publication. This publication bias towards positive findings may contribute to questionable research practices. Preregistration is a solution to prevent the publication of distorted evidence resulting from this system. This process asks authors to register their hypotheses and methods before data collection on a publicly available repository or by submitting a Registered Report. In the Registered Reports format, authors submit a Stage 1 manuscript to a participating journal that includes an introduction, methods, and any pilot data indicating the exploratory or confirmatory nature of the study. After a Stage 1 peer review, the manuscript can then be offered in-principle acceptance, rejected, or sent back for revisions to improve the quality of the study. If accepted, the project is guaranteed publication, assuming the authors follow the data collection and analysis protocol. After data collection, authors re-submit a Stage 2 manuscript that includes the results and discussion, and the study is evaluated on clarity and conformity with the planned analysis. In its final form, Registered Reports appear almost identical to a typical publication, but give readers confidence that the hypotheses and main analyses are less susceptible to bias from questionable research practices. From this perspective, we argue that inclusion of Registered Reports by researchers and journals will improve the transparency, replicability, and trust in sport and exercise science research.

Regional variation in the reliability of sweat rate measured via the ventilated capsule technique during passive heating

“…significant versus not), rather than critical interpretation of data is likely to be a factor contributing to the poor reproducibility rate of scientific findings (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). These recommendations therefore add to growing calls to improve practices in the field (Caldwell et al., 2020; Borg et al., 2020), particularly with respect to acknowledging the role of measurement error (and reliability) to aid in robust research design and critical evaluation of data, which might improve the inferences we make.…”

Myths and methodologies: Reliability of non‐invasive estimates of cardiac autonomic modulation during whole‐body passive heating

“…not), rather than critical interpretation of data is likely a contributing factor to the poor reproducibility rate of scientific findings (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). These recommendations therefore add to growing calls to improve practices in the field (Abt et al., 2020; Borg et al., 2020; Caldwell et al., 2020), but extend these commentaries to highlight the role of measurement error (and reliability) to aid in robust research design, and critical evaluation of data.…”

Does increasing an athletes’ strength improve sports performance? A critical review with suggestions to help answer this, and other, causal questions in sport science

“…We have offered some suggestions to help improve research in this area and better answer this question including: larger sample sizes, determination of smallest effect sizes of interest for outcomes including muscular strength and proxy measures of sports performance (using both anchoring and/or expert opinion), and use of causal inference methods for observational data including graphical causal diagrams and mediation analysis. Many of these suggestions can further benefit from adherence to principles of open science including detailed a priori specification and pre-registration or use of registered reports 35 . It is hoped that this article helps to improve future research not only seeking to answer the question(s) posed here but also for other causal questions in sport science.…”

“…within sport science, there is no reason to believe that the same is not occurring within this discipline and the field may be rife with false positive findings. 35 Ignoring for the moment that we still lack data on actual sports performance outcomes, it seems possible that many within the field, including researchers and practitioners, may be pontificating upon false positives and inflated effect sizes regarding proxy outcomes for sports performance and thus, overestimating any benefits of increasing muscular strength through interventions such as resistance training.…”