The benefits of preregistration and Registered Reports

References

• Agnoli, F., J. M. Wicherts, C. L. S. Veldkamp, P. Albiero, and R. Cubelli. 2017. “Questionable Research Practices among Italian Research Psychologists.” PloS One 12 (3): e0172792. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172792
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alister, M., R. Vickers-Jones, D. K. Sewell, and T. Ballard. 2021. “How Do We Choose Our Giants? Perceptions of Replicability in Psychological Science.” Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 4 (2): 251524592110181. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211018199
   Google Scholar
• Allen, C., and D. M. A. Mehler. 2019. “Open Science Challenges, Benefits and Tips in Early Career and Beyond.” PLoS Biology 17 (5): e3000246. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Psychological Association. 2023. Open Science Badges. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/resources/open-science-badges
   Google Scholar
• Artino, A. R., E. W. Driessen, and L. A. Maggio. 2019. “Ethical Shades of Gray: International Frequency of Scientific Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education.” Academic Medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 94 (1): 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002412
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babbage, C. 1830. Reflections on the Decline of Science in England: And on Some of Its Causes. London: B. Fellowes.
   Google Scholar
• Bakan, D. 1966. “The Test of Significance in Psychological Research.” Psychological Bulletin 66 (6): 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020412
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker, B. N., J. Kokil, T. Dörr, N. Fasching, and Y. Lelkes. 2021. “Questionable and Open Research Practices: Attitudes and Perceptions among Quantitative Communication Researchers.” Journal of Communication 71 (5): 715–738. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker, M., C. L. S. Veldkamp, M. A. L. M. van Assen, E. A. V. Crompvoets, H. H. Ong, B. A. Nosek, C. K. Soderberg, D. Mellor, and J. M. Wicherts. 2020. “Ensuring the Quality and Specificity of Preregistrations.” PLoS Biology 18 (12): e3000937. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000937
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber, B. 1961. “Resistance by Scientists to Scientific Discovery.” Science (New York, N.Y.) 134 (3479): 596–602. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.134.3479.596
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bazzoli, A. 2022. “Open Science and Epistemic Pluralism: A Tale of Many Perils and Some Opportunities.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology 15 (4): 525–528. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.67
   Google Scholar
• Bottesini, J. G., M. Rhemtulla, and S. Vazire. 2022. “What Do Participants Think of Our Research Practices? An Examination of Behavioural Psychology Participants’ Preferences.” Royal Society Open Science 9 (4): 200048. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200048
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brachem, J., M. Frank, T. Kvetnaya, L. F. F. Schramm, and L. Volz. 2022. “Replikationskrise, p-Hacking Und Open Science.” Psychologische Rundschau 73 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042/a000562
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodeur, A., N. M. Cook, J. S. Hartley, and A. Heyes. 2024. Do Pre-Registration and Pre-Analysis Plans Reduce p-Hacking and Publication Bias? Evidence from 15,992 Test Statistics and Suggestions for Improvement (Working Paper 101). I4R Discussion Paper Series. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/281136
   Google Scholar
• Carter, E. C., F. D. Schönbrodt, W. M. Gervais, and J. Hilgard. 2019. “Correcting for Bias in Psychology: A Comparison of Meta-Analytic Methods.” Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 2 (2): 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847196
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, C. D. 2013. “Registered Reports: A New Publishing Initiative at Cortex.” Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior 49 (3): 609–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.12.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, C. D., and L. Tzavella. 2022. “The Past, Present and Future of Registered Reports.” Nature Human Behaviour 6 (1): 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01193-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, A.-W., J. M. Tetzlaff, P. C. Gøtzsche, D. G. Altman, H. Mann, J. A. Berlin, K. Dickersin, et al. 2013. “SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration: Guidance for Protocols of Clinical Trials.” BMJ (Clinical Research ed.) 346 (jan08 15): e7586–e7586. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e7586
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chin, J. M., J. T. Pickett, S. Vazire, and A. O. Holcombe. 2021. “Questionable Research Practices and Open Science in Quantitative Criminology.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 39 (1): 21–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-021-09525-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claesen, A., S. L. B. T. Gomes, F. Tuerlinckx, and Vanpaemel Wolf. 2019. “Preregistration: Comparing Dream to Reality.” [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/d8wex
   Google Scholar
• Collins, H. K., A. V. Whillans, and L. K. John. 2021. “Joy and Rigor in Behavioral Science.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 164: 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2021.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conry-Murray, C., A. McConnon, and M. Bower. 2022. “The Effect of Preregistration and P-Value Patterns on Trust in Psychology and Biology Research.” Collabra: Psychology 8 (1): 36306. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.36306
   Google Scholar
• Declaration on Open Science. 2020. https://www.setac.org/resource/declaration-on-open-science.html
   Google Scholar
• Devezer, B., D. J. Navarro, J. Vandekerckhove, and E. Ozge Buzbas. 2021. “The Case for Formal Methodology in Scientific Reform.” Royal Society Open Science 8 (3): 200805. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200805
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickersin, K., Y. I. Min, and C. L. Meinert. 1992. “Factors Influencing Publication of Research Results. Follow-up of Applications Submitted to Two Institutional Review Boards.” JAMA 267 (3): 374–378. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1992.03480210049019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickersin, K., and D. Rennie. 2003. “Registering Clinical Trials.” JAMA 290 (4): 516–523. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.4.516
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickersin, K., and D. Rennie. 2012. “The Evolution of Trial Registries and Their Use to Assess the Clinical Trial Enterprise.” JAMA 307 (17): 1861–1864. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.4230
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dirnagl, U. 2020. “Preregistration of Exploratory Research: Learning from the Golden Age of Discovery.” PLoS Biology 18 (3): e3000690. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000690
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eijk, N., van Jiao, H, and Peters, G.-J. 2024. Making Preregistration Accessible: An R Package to Make Machine-Readable Preregistrations and Create New Preregistration Forms. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qfjy7
   Google Scholar
• Ellemers, N. 2013. “Connecting the Dots: Mobilizing Theory to Reveal the Big Picture in Social Psychology (and Why we Should Do This): The Big Picture in Social Psychology.” European Journal of Social Psychology 43 (1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1932
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellwood-Lowe, M. E., R. Foushee, and M. Srinivasan. 2021. Response to Flournoy (2021): Reflections on the Benefits and Challenges of Communicating the Results of a Pre-Registered Study. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wfe4r
   Google Scholar
• Ensinck, E., and D. Lakens. 2023. An Inception Cohort Study Quantifying How Many Registered Studies Are Published. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5hkjz
   Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D. 2012. “Negative Results Are Disappearing from Most Disciplines and Countries.” Scientometrics 90 (3): 891–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, J., R. Littman, G. Christensen, E. L. Paluck, N. Swanson, Z. Wang, E. Miguel, D. Birke, and J.-H. Pezzuto. 2023. “Survey of Open Science Practices and Attitudes in the Social Sciences.” Nature Communications 14 (1): 5401. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41111-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiedler, K., and N. Schwarz. 2016. “Questionable Research Practices Revisited.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 7 (1): 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615612150
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field, S. M., E.-J. Wagenmakers, H. A. L. Kiers, R. Hoekstra, A. F. Ernst, and D. van Ravenzwaaij. 2020. “The Effect of Preregistration on Trust in Empirical Research Findings: Results of a Registered Report.” Royal Society Open Science 7 (4): 181351. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181351
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flournoy, J. 2021. A Comment on Ellwood-Lowe et al. (2020/2021): Presentation and Discussion of Results Should Take the Lead from the Preregistration. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/23qsw
   Google Scholar
• Franco, A., N. Malhotra, and G. Simonovits. 2014. “Publication Bias in the Social Sciences: Unlocking the File Drawer.” Science (New York, N.Y.) 345 (6203): 1502–1505. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1255484
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, H., T. Parker, S. Nakagawa, A. Barnett, and F. Fidler. 2018. “Questionable Research Practices in Ecology and Evolution.” PloS One 13 (7): e0200303. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frick, R. W. 1996. “The Appropriate Use of Null Hypothesis Testing.” Psychological Methods 1 (4): 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.4.379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Garzon, E., A. Angulo-Brunet, O. Lecuona, J. R. Barrada, and G. Corradi. 2022. “Exploring COVID-19 Research Credibility among Spanish Scientists.” Current Psychology 43: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02797-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., and C. R. Shalizi. 2013. “Philosophy and the Practice of Bayesian Statistics.” British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 66 (1): 8–38. https://doi.org/10/f4k2h4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldacre, B., N. J. DeVito, C. Heneghan, F. Irving, S. Bacon, J. Fleminger, and H. Curtis. 2018. “Compliance with Requirement to Report Results on the EU Clinical Trials Register: Cohort Study and Web Resource.” BMJ (Clinical Research ed.) 362: k3218. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3218
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenwald, A. G. 1975. “Consequences of Prejudice against the Null Hypothesis.” Psychological Bulletin 82 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haig, B. D. 2018. “An Abductive Theory of Scientific Method.” In Method Matters in Psychology, 35–64. Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-01051-5#bibliographic-information
   Google Scholar
• Haig, B. D. 2020. “What Can Psychology’s Statistics Reformers Learn from the Error-Statistical Perspective?” Methods in Psychology 2: 100020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2020.100020
   Google Scholar
• Hardwig, J. 1991. “The Role of Trust in Knowledge.” Journal of Philosophy 88 (12): 693–708. https://doi.org/10.2307/2027007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haven, T. L., and L. Van Grootel. 2019. “Preregistering Qualitative Research.” Accountability in Research 26 (3): 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1580147
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedges, L. V. 1984. “Estimation of Effect Size under Nonrandom Sampling: The Effects of Censoring Studies Yielding Statistically Insignificant Mean Differences.” Journal of Educational Statistics 9 (1): 61–85. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986009001061
   Google Scholar
• Höfler, M., S. Scherbaum, P. Kanske, B. McDonald, and R. Miller. 2022. “Means to Valuable Exploration: I. The Blending of Confirmation and Exploration and How to Resolve It.” Meta-Psychology 6. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2021.2837
   Google Scholar
• Isbell, D. R., D. Brown, M. Chen, D. J. Derrick, R. Ghanem, M. N. G. Arvizu, E. Schnur, M. Zhang, and L. Plonsky. 2022. “Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: The Ethics of Quantitative Data Handling and Reporting in Applied Linguistics.” Modern Language Journal 106 (1): 172–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12760
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janke, S., M. Daumiller, and S. C. Rudert. 2019. “Dark Pathways to Achievement in Science: Researchers’ Achievement Goals Predict Engagement in Questionable Research Practices.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 10 (6): 783–791. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618790227
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John, L. K., G. Loewenstein, and D. Prelec. 2012. “Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices with Incentives for Truth Telling.” Psychological Science 23 (5): 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. 1975. “Models of Control and Control of Bias.” European Journal of Parapsychology 1: 36–44.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, R. M., and V. L. Irvin. 2015. “Likelihood of Null Effects of Large NHLBI Clinical Trials Has Increased over Time.” PloS One 10 (8): e0132382. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132382
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, N. L. 1998. “HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results Are Known.” Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc 2 (3): 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Keynes, J. M. 1921. A Treatise on Probability. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kleinaki, A.-S., P. Mytis-Gkometh, G. Drosatos, P. S. Efraimidis, and E. Kaldoudi. 2018. “A Blockchain-Based Notarization Service for Biomedical Knowledge Retrieval.” Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 16: 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2018.08.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köhler, T., M. G. González-Morales, G. C. Banks, E. H. O’Boyle, J. A. Allen, R. Sinha, S. E. Woo, and L. M. V. Gulick. 2020. “Supporting Robust, Rigorous, and Reliable Reviewing as the Cornerstone of Our Profession: Introducing a Competency Framework for Peer Review.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology 13 (1): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2019.121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvarven, A., E. Strømland, and M. Johannesson. 2019. “Comparing Meta-Analyses and Preregistered Multiple-Laboratory Replication Projects.” Nature Human Behaviour 4 (4): 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0787-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laine, C., R. Horton, C. D. DeAngelis, J. M. Drazen, F. A. Frizelle, F. Godlee, C. Haug, et al. 2007. “Clinical Trial Registration—Looking Back and Moving Ahead.” New England Journal of Medicine 356 (26): 2734–2736. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe078110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakatos, I. 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Volume 1: Philosophical Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakens, D. 2014. “Performing High-Powered Studies Efficiently with Sequential Analyses.” European Journal of Social Psychology 44 (7): 701–710. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakens, D. 2015. “On the Challenges of Drawing Conclusions from p-Values Just below 0.05.” PeerJ. 3: e1142. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1142
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakens, D. 2019. “The Value of Preregistration for Psychological Science: A Conceptual Analysis.” Japanese Psychological Review 62 (3): 221–230. https://doi.org/10.24602/sjpr.62.3_221
   Google Scholar
• Lakens, D. 2024. “When and How to Deviate From a Preregistration.” Collabra: Psychology 10 (1): 117094. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.117094
   Google Scholar
• Lakens, D., and L. M. DeBruine. 2021. “Improving Transparency, Falsifiability, and Rigor by Making Hypothesis Tests Machine-Readable.” Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 4 (2): 251524592097094. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920970949
   Google Scholar
• Lash, T. L., and J. P. Vandenbroucke. 2012. “Commentary: Should Preregistration of Epidemiologic Study Protocols Become Compulsory? Reflections and a Counterproposal.” Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass) 23 (2): 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e318245c05b
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latan, H., C. J. Chiappetta Jabbour, A. B. Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, and M. Ali. 2021. “Crossing the Red Line? Empirical Evidence and Useful Recommendations on Questionable Research Practices among Business Scholars.” Journal of Business Ethics 184 (3): 549–569. – https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04961-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, C. J., C. R. Sugimoto, G. Zhang, and B. Cronin. 2013. “Bias in Peer Review.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1): 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemmens, T. 2004. “Leopards in the Temple: Restoring Scientific Integrity to the Commercialized Research Scene.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32 (4): 641–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720x.2004.tb01969.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenz, G. S., and A. Sahn. 2021. “Achieving Statistical Significance with Control Variables and Without Transparency.” Political Analysis 29 (3): 356–369. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2020.31
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logg, J. M., and C. A. Dorison. 2021. “Pre-Registration: Weighing Costs and Benefits for Researchers.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 167: 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2021.05.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahoney, M. J. 1977. “Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System.” Cognitive Therapy and Research 1 (2): 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173636
   Google Scholar
• Makel, M. C., J. Hodges, B. G. Cook, and J. A. Plucker. 2021. “Both Questionable and Open Research Practices Are Prevalent in Education Research.” Educational Researcher 50 (8): 493–504. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211001356
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayo, D. G. 2018. Statistical Inference as Severe Testing: How to Get beyond the Statistics Wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McDermott, R. 2022. “Breaking Free: How Preregistration Hurts Scholars and Science.” Politics and the Life Sciences: The Journal of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 41 (1): 55–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2022.4
   Google Scholar
• McIntosh, R. D. 2017. “Exploratory Reports: A New Article Type for Cortex.” Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior 96: A1–A4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.07.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meehl, P. E. 2004. “Cliometric Metatheory III: Peircean Consensus, Verisimilitude and Asymptotic Method.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (4): 615–643. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/55.4.615
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellor, D., K. S. Corker, and P. Whaley. 2024. “Preregistration Templates as a New Addition to the Evidence-Based Toxicology Toolbox.” Evidence-Based Toxicology 2 (1): 2314303. https://doi.org/10.1080/2833373X.2024.2314303
   Google Scholar
• Mertens, G., and A.-M. Krypotos. 2019. “Preregistration of Analyses of Preexisting Data.” Psychologica Belgica 59 (1): 338–352. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.493
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitroff, I. I. 1974. “Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists.” American Sociological Review 39 (4): 579–595. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094423
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moran, C., A. Richard, K. Wilson, R. Twomey, and A. Coroiu. 2022. “I Know It’s Bad, but I Have Been Pressured into It: Questionable Research Practices among Psychology Students in Canada.” Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne 64 (1): 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000326
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Motyl, M., A. P. Demos, T. S. Carsel, B. E. Hanson, Z. J. Melton, A. B. Mueller, J. P. Prims, et al. 2017. “The State of Social and Personality Science: Rotten to the Core, Not so Bad, Getting Better, or Getting Worse?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 113 (1): 34–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000084
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munafò, M. R., and G. D. Smith. 2018. “Robust Research Needs Many Lines of Evidence.” Nature 553 (7689): 399–401. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-01023-3
   Google Scholar
• Neyman, J., and E. S. Pearson. 1928. “On the Use and Interpretation of Certain Test Criteria for Purposes of Statistical Inference: Part I.” Biometrika 20A (1–2): 175–240. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/20A.1-2.175
   Google Scholar
• Nosek, B. A., C. R. Ebersole, A. C. DeHaven, and D. T. Mellor. 2018. “The Preregistration Revolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115 (11): 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosek, B. A., and D. Lakens. 2014. “Registered Reports: A Method to Increase the Credibility of Published Results.” Social Psychology 45 (3): 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ofosu, G. K., and D. N. Posner. 2023. “Pre-Analysis Plans: An Early Stocktaking.” Perspectives on Politics 21 (1): 174–190. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592721000931
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olken, B. A. 2015. “Promises and Perils of Pre-Analysis Plans.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 29 (3): 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.3.61
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peer Community In – Registered Reports. n.d. Guide for Authors. https://rr.peercommunityin.org/help/guide_for_authors
   Google Scholar
• Pham, M. T., and T. T. Oh. 2021. “Preregistration Is Neither Sufficient nor Necessary for Good Science.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 31 (1): 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickett, J. T., and S. P. Roche. 2017. “Questionable, Objectionable or Criminal? Public Opinion on Data Fraud and Selective Reporting in Science.” Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (1): 151–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9886-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popper, K. R. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. R. 1962. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Proschan, M. A., K. K. G. Lan, and J. T. Wittes. 2006. Statistical Monitoring of Clinical Trials: A Unified Approach. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Qureshi, R., A. Gough, and K. Loudon. 2022. “The SPIRIT Checklist—Lessons from the Experience of SPIRIT Protocol Editors.” Trials 23 (1): 359. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06316-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabelo, A. L. A., J. E. M. Farias, M. M. Sarmet, T. C. R. Joaquim, R. C. Hoersting, L. Victorino, J. G. N. Modesto, and R. Pilati. 2020. “Questionable Research Practices among Brazilian Psychological Researchers: Results from a Replication Study and an International Comparison.” International Journal of Psychology: Journal International de Psychologie 55 (4): 674–683. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12632
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, R. 1966. Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
   Google Scholar
• Ross, R., and E. D. Heggestad. 2020. “An Empirical Exploration of Reviewers’ and Editors’ Roles Fostering High Quality Research during Peer Review.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology 13 (1): 32–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.16
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, M. 2022. “The Costs of HARKing.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 73 (2): 535–560. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin, M., and C. Donkin. 2022. “Exploratory Hypothesis Tests Can Be More Compelling than Confirmatory Hypothesis Tests.” Philosophical Psychology:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2022.2113771
   Google Scholar
• Sarafoglou, A., M. Kovacs, B. Bakos, E.-J. Wagenmakers, and B. Aczel. 2022. “A Survey on How Preregistration Affects the Research Workflow: Better Science but More Work.” Royal Society Open Science 9 (7): 211997. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211997
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sartori, G. 1970. “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics.” American Political Science Review 64 (4): 1033–1053. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958356
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schäfer, T., and M. A. Schwarz. 2019. “The Meaningfulness of Effect Sizes in Psychological Research: Differences Between Sub-Disciplines and the Impact of Potential Biases.” Frontiers in Psychology 10: 813. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00813
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schapira, M., T. O. L. N. Consortium, and R. J. Harding, Open Lab Notebook Consortium. 2019. “Open Laboratory Notebooks: Good for Science, Good for Society, Good for Scientists.” F1000Research. (8 (87): 87. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17710.2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scheel, A. M., L. Tiokhin, P. M. Isager, and D. Lakens. 2021. “Why Hypothesis Testers Should Spend Less Time Testing Hypotheses.” Perspectives on Psychological Science: a Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 16 (4): 744–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966795
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schneider, J. W., N. Allum, J. P. Andersen, M. B. Petersen, N. Mejlgaard, and R. Zachariae. 2023. Is Something Rotten in the State of Denmark? Cross-National Evidence for Widespread Involvement but Not Systematic Use of Questionable Research Practices across All Fields of Research. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/r6j3z
   Google Scholar
• Scroggie, K. R., K. J. Burrell-Sander, P. J. Rutledge, and A. Motion. 2023. “GitHub as an Open Electronic Laboratory Notebook for Real-Time Sharing of Knowledge and Collaboration.” Digital Discovery 2 (4): 1188–1196. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3DD00032J
   Google Scholar
• Shadish, W. R., T. D. Cook, and D. T. Campbell. 2001. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Silverstein, P., C. R. Pennington, P. Branney, D. B. O’Connor, E. Lawlor, E. O’Brien, and D. Lynott. 2024. “A Registered Report Survey of Open Research Practices in Psychology Departments in the UK and Ireland.” British Journal of Psychology (London, England: 1953):1–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12700
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons, J. P., L. D. Nelson, and U. Simonsohn. 2021. “Pre-Registration: Why and How.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 31 (1): 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons, D. J. 2018. “Introducing Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science.” Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 1 (1): 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918757424
   Google Scholar
• Soderberg, C. K., T. M. Errington, S. R. Schiavone, J. Bottesini, F. S. Thorn, S. Vazire, K. M. Esterling, and B. A. Nosek. 2021. “Initial Evidence of Research Quality of Registered Reports Compared with the Standard Publishing Model.” Nature Human Behaviour 5 (8): 990–997. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spitzer, L., and S. Mueller. 2023. “Registered Report: Survey on Attitudes and Experiences regarding Preregistration in Psychological Research.” PloS One 18 (3): e0281086. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281086
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterling, T. D. 1959. “Publication Decisions and Their Possible Effects on Inferences Drawn from Tests of Significance—Or Vice Versa.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 54 (285): 30–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/2282137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swift, J. K., C. D. Christopherson, M. O. Bird, A. Zöld, and J. Goode. 2022. “Questionable Research Practices among Faculty and Students in APA-Accredited Clinical and Counseling Psychology Doctoral Programs.” Training and Education in Professional Psychology 16 (3): 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000322
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Syed, M. 2024. Preregistration: More Promises than Pitfalls [Substack newsletter]. Get Syeducated. https://web.archive.org/web/20240315201654/https://getsyeducated.substack.com/p/preregistration-more-promises-than
   Google Scholar
• Szollosi, A., and C. Donkin. 2021. “Arrested Theory Development: The Misguided Distinction Between Exploratory and Confirmatory Research.” Perspectives on Psychological Science: a Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 16 (4): 717–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966796
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Szollosi, A., D. Kellen, D. J. Navarro, R. Shiffrin, I. van Rooij, T. Van Zandt, and C. Donkin. 2020. “Is Preregistration Worthwhile?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 24 (2): 94–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.11.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toth, A. A., G. C. Banks, D. Mellor, E. H. O’Boyle, A. Dickson, D. J. Davis, A. DeHaven, J. Bochantin, and J. Borns. 2021. “Study Preregistration: An Evaluation of a Method for Transparent Reporting.” Journal of Business and Psychology 36 (4): 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09695-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uygun-Tunç, D., M. N. Tunç, and Z. B. Eper. 2021. Is Open Science Neoliberal? https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ft8dc
   Google Scholar
• Uygun-Tunç, D., and M. N. Tunç. 2023. “A Falsificationist Treatment of Auxiliary Hypotheses in Social and Behavioral Sciences: Systematic Replications Framework.” Meta-Psychology 7. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2021.2756
   Google Scholar
• van den Akker, O. R., M. A. L. M. van Assen, M. Bakker, M. Elsherif, T. K. Wong, and J. M. Wicherts. 2023. “Preregistration in Practice: A Comparison of Preregistered and Non-Preregistered Studies in Psychology.” Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02277-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Akker, O. R., M. A. L. M. van Assen, M. Enting, M. de Jonge, H. H. Ong, F. Rüffer, M. Schoenmakers, A. H. Stoevenbelt, J. M. Wicherts, and M. Bakker. 2023. “Selective Hypothesis Reporting in Psychology: Comparing Preregistrations and Corresponding Publications.” Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 6 (3): 25152459231187988. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231187988
   Google Scholar
• van Dongen, N., J. Sprenger, and E.-J. Wagenmakers. 2023. “A Bayesian Perspective on Severity: Risky Predictions and Specific Hypotheses.” Psychometric Bulletin & Review 30:516–533.
   Google Scholar
• Van Fraassen, B. C. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Lissa, C. J., A. M. Brandmaier, L. Brinkman, A.-L. Lamprecht, A. Peikert, M. E. Struiksma, and B. M. I. Vreede. 2021. “WORCS: A Workflow for Open Reproducible Code in Science.” Data Science 4 (1): 29–49. https://doi.org/10.3233/DS-210031
   Google Scholar
• Vandenbroucke, J. P. 2010. “Preregistration of Epidemiologic Studies: An Ill-Founded Mix of Ideas.” Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass) 21 (5): 619–620. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181e942b8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanpaemel, W. 2019. “The Really Risky Registered Modeling Report: Incentivizing Strong Tests and HONEST Modeling in Cognitive Science.” Computational Brain & Behavior 2 (3–4): 218–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-019-00056-9
   Google Scholar
• van’t Veer, Anna Elisabeth, and Roger Giner-Sorolla. 2016. “Pre-Registration in Social Psychology—A Discussion and Suggested Template.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 67: 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vazire, S., S. R. Schiavone, and J. G. Bottesini. 2022. “Credibility Beyond Replicability: Improving the Four Validities in Psychological Science.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 31 (2): 162–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211067779
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vohs, K. D., B. J. Schmeichel, S. Lohmann, Q. F. Gronau, A. J. Finley, S. E. Ainsworth, J. L. Alquist, et al. 2021. “A Multisite Preregistered Paradigmatic Test of the Ego-Depletion Effect.” Psychological Science 32 (10): 1566–1581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797621989733
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wacholder, S., S. Chanock, M. Garcia-Closas, L. El Ghormli, and N. Rothman. 2004. “Assessing the Probability That a Positive Report is False: An Approach for Molecular Epidemiology Studies.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 96 (6): 434–442. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djh075
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagenmakers, E.-J., R. Wetzels, D. Borsboom, H. L. van der Maas, and R. A. Kievit. 2012. “An Agenda for Purely Confirmatory Research.” Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 7 (6): 632–638. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463078
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Waldron, S., and C. Allen. 2022. “Not All Pre-Registrations Are Equal.” Neuropsychopharmacology: Official Publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology 47 (13): 2181–2183. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-022-01418-x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Walster, G., and T. Cleary. 1970. “A Proposal for a New Editorial Policy in the Social Sciences.” American Statistician 24 (2): 16–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1970.10478884
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wandall, B., S. O. Hansson, and C. Rudén. 2007. “Bias in Toxicology.” Archives of Toxicology 81 (9): 605–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-007-0194-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wassmer, G., and W. Brannath. 2016. Group Sequential and Confirmatory Adaptive Designs in Clinical Trials. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32562-0
   Google Scholar
• Weston, S. J., S. J. Ritchie, J. M. Rohrer, and A. K. Przybylski. 2019. “Recommendations for Increasing the Transparency of Analysis of Preexisting Data Sets.” Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 2 (3): 214–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919848684
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Willroth, E. C., and O. E. Atherton. 2024. “Best Laid Plans: A Guide to Reporting Preregistration Deviations.” Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dwx69
   Google Scholar
• Zarin, D. A., K. M. Fain, H. D. Dobbins, T. Tse, and R. J. Williams. 2019. “10-Year Update on Study Results Submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov.” New England Journal of Medicine 381 (20): 1966–1974. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr1907644
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar