Registered Reports: Realigning incentives in scientific publishing

Chambers, Chris; Dienes, Zoltán; McIntosh, Robert D.; Rotshtein, Pia; Willmes, Klaus

doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.03.022

Cited by 170 publications

(164 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

164

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…reviewed. An alternative is to submit a registered report to a journal, which is peer-reviewed and has the opportunity to be revised, before any data are collected (Chambers, 2013;Chambers et al, 2015;Munafo, 2017;COS Team, 2013). Not only does the peer-review potentially improve the study design and analyses pipeline, but if accepted, the journal is committed to publishing the results, whatever the outcome, which reduces the "file-drawer" problem in which many null results are never published (Head et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for prereg posters as a platform for preregistration

Brouwers

Cooke

Chambers

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for prereg posters as a platform for preregistration

Brouwers

Cooke

Chambers

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In RRs, the study protocol is submitted for peer review before any experiments are conducted and, if the protocol is deemed to have scientific merit, an editorial commitment is made, in advance, to publishing the outcomes. Armed with this provisional acceptance, authors can conduct the research safe in the knowledge that the results themselves will not determine the article's publication [9]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evidence that many of the findings in the published literature may be unreliable is compelling. There is an excess of positive results, often from studies with small sample sizes, or other methodological limitations, and the conspicuous absence of null findings from studies of a similar quality. This distorts the evidence base, leading to false conclusions and undermining scientific progress. Central to this problem is a peer-review system where the decisions of authors, reviewers, and editors are more influenced by impressive results than they are by the validity of the study design. To address this, BMC Psychology is launching a pilot to trial a new ‘results-free’ peer-review process, whereby editors and reviewers are blinded to the study’s results, initially assessing manuscripts on the scientific merits of the rationale and methods alone. The aim is to improve the reliability and quality of published research, by focusing editorial decisions on the rigour of the methods, and preventing impressive ends justifying poor means.

show abstract

“…The pre-registration of research shifts the focus from "publishable results" to sound hypotheses and methodology (Chambers, 2014), thereby eliminating the pressure to resort to undesirable research practices (many of which have been outlined above). Specifically, researchers submit a document, which details the introduction, theoretical motivation, experimental design, data pre-processing steps (e.g., outlier removal criteria), and the planned statistical analyses prior to data collection.…”

Section: How Can We Address These Issues?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Publication bias, insufficient statistical power, cherry-picking, post hoc hypothesising, and a paucity of data sharing (Chambers, 2014) have become common practice in scientific publishing, threatening the foundation of scientific enquiry. These aforementioned problems are perpetuated by the "publish or perish" mantra, which is omnipresent in the scientific community.…”

Section: Introducing Registered Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The aim of pre-registration is to encourage research that presents sound hypotheses and methodology (Chambers, 2014) in order to counter undesirable but prevalent research practices such as cherry-picking and p-hacking. In this Letter from the Editors, we wish to echo calls for registered reports and outline how we, the Editors at the Journal of European Psychology Students (JEPS), plan to introduce registered reports for student research.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Registered Reports for Student Research

2016

Journal of European Psychology Students

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pre-registration of research via registered reports is a recent development in the field of psychology. The aim of pre-registration is to encourage research that presents sound hypotheses and methodology (Chambers, 2014) in order to counter undesirable but prevalent research practices such as cherry-picking and p-hacking. In this Letter from the Editors, we wish to echo calls for registered reports and outline how we, the Editors at the Journal of European Psychology Students (JEPS), plan to introduce registered reports for student research. We address the issues necessitating the introduction of registered reports and outline the approach needed for implementing this initiative in a student journal.

show abstract

Registered Reports: Realigning incentives in scientific publishing

Cited by 170 publications

References 16 publications

Evidence for prereg posters as a platform for preregistration

Evidence for prereg posters as a platform for preregistration

Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review

Registered Reports for Student Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About