Preregistration of exploratory research: Learning from the golden age of discovery

Abstract

Preregistration of study protocols and, in particular, Registered Reports are novel publishing formats that are currently gaining substantial traction. Besides rating the research question and soundness of methodology over outstanding significance of the results, they can help with antagonizing inadequate statistical power, selective reporting of results, undisclosed analytic flexibility, as well as publication bias. Preregistration works well when a clear hypothesis, primary outcome, and mode of analysis can be formulated. But is it also applicable and useful in discovery research, which develops theories and hypotheses, measurement techniques, and generates evidence that justifies further research? I will argue that only slight modifications are needed to harness the potential of preregistration and make exploratory research more trustworthy and useful.

Make like a glass frog: In support of increased transparency in herpetology

“…Critically, the journal decides whether to accept the publication at stage 1, via an "in principle acceptance", meaning any decision is only contingent on a solid study design, not novel findings or significant results. The stage 1 peer review has vast benefits for researchers: we can correct weaker methods and analyses, we can identify journal guideline conflicts, and we can improve methods based on overlooked literature, prior to expending time and money on experimentation (Dirnagl, 2020).…”

Ensuring Reproducible Research Requires a Support Infrastructure: The Value of Public Registries to Publishers

“…However, having the option of preregistration and reporting these analyses as expansions of the planned protocol adds to the overall transparency and prevents often unintentional and questionable research practices such as p-hacking and HARKing (Hypothesizing After Results are Known). 5 Further, follow-up studies or small parts of a larger research project can be easily preregistered using already existing study templates. The choice of a journal to which a manuscript is submitted is left to the researcher and often is made according to the study results.…”

Using the concept of “deserved trust” to strengthen the value and integrity of biomedical research

“…They will pre-register their protocol so that they can both receive feedback about their study design and establish for their eventual readers fealty between their research and what they eventually write about it. (Nosek et al 2018) (Dirnagl 2020) Next, in order to ensure greater efficiency in the research community's translation efforts, they will clearly state in their published reports whether theirs was a hypothesis generating or hypothesis testing study. (Kimmelman, Mogil, and Dirnagl 2014) Finally, they will share their data so that others can independently check their analyses and, should they desire since they will also have their protocol, attempt to replicate the study findings.…”