Reflections on a registered report replicating a body of dyadic cross‐sectional research

Abstract

This article reflects on a new kind of registered report (RR) that replicated the work of an early career researcher. The research items targeted in this RR were peer-reviewed, cross-sectional, dyadic studies to which the first author of this RR had contributed. The findings being replicated are not noteworthy for their prestige or representativeness of the wider field. Instead, this method of replication may have several benefits and less desirable qualities for the researcher and research team whose work is being replicated, for science more broadly, and for relationship science specifically, reviewed herein. The authors hope that this reflection inspires researchers to improve upon their methodology by incorporating replication of their work early and often into their own research process. K E Y W O R D S dyadic data analysis, other, surveys 1 | INTRODUCTION Many large-scale registered replication reports have been conducted in the fields of social psychology, cognitive psychology, and the humanities more generally (

Open science in dementia care embedded pragmatic clinical trials.

“…We sympathize with the difficulty that making decisions publicly can create and the feelings of being “pigeon-holed” those public decisions might engender. Drawing on our own experience making decisions publicly in preregistered work (Baker et al, 2020; Mitchell et al, 2021), we included analyses that diverged from those we preregistered, such as exploratory analyses to follow-up on unexpected findings, and sensitivity analyses determining whether alternative analytic decisions would affect the findings substantially. Rather than being forced to exclude these nonpreregistered analyses, we reported them and denoted that they were separate from the preregistered, confirmatory analyses.…”