Registered Reports
- Kaila Yallum
- May 9
- 3 min read
Updated: May 29
Registered reports are one attempt, amongst many, to take on the challenges of our contemporary research processes, and I think there is an incredible amount of merit in this approach. While registered reports have been discussed in the metascience community for over a decade, I want to contribute to this conversation by highlighting the incredible potential on registered reports in supporting early-career researchers.
How do Registered Reports Work?
Prof. Chris Chambers, affiliated with Cardiff University, is leading the charge for registered reports. In his efforts to help the movement gain traction, he has published a number of key communications, including this editorial, where he and his co-authors, Eva Feredoes, Suresh D. Muthukumaraswamy, and Peter J. Etchells provide the context that motivates the implementation of registered reports and respond to questions and criticisms of the initiative.
In broad strokes, registered reports would introduce a peer-review step earlier in the publishing process where experts in a given field will peer review a research plan after the research questions and experimental approach have been clearly defined. Following the peer review of the approach, researchers will then undertake data collection and analysis. After the full report is written, the second peer-review stage is initiated to complete the process and bring the paper through to publishing.
The Center for Open Science, on this page, explains the principles of registered reports and details the over 300 academic journals that participate in this restructured publishing workflow. Peer Community In (PCI) has a dedicated registered reports community (PCI RR) that undertakes the peer review step of research concepts and study designs as well as the second step. The PCI RR peer-review decisions are accepted by participating journals.
The Motivation for Registered Reports
Each of the issues that registered reports are addressing will become (many) full blog posts on their own. These issues have been discussed since the dawn of science, and are full of examples, horror stories, and attempts at rectification. Briefly, in the interest of motivating registered reports, the main issues metascience activists seek to address are (amongst others):
HARKing, or "Hypothesizing after results are known"
p-hacking, the manipulation of statistical significance via selective reporting or inclusion of irrelevant data
Low statistical power, which leads to conclusions with low likelihood of representing reality
Publication bias, the rejection of articles that have negative or undesirable results
By peer reviewing the hypotheses and study designs before data collection, manipulation of data sets to obtain statistical significance and HARKing can be mitigated. Reviewers will also have opportunities to suggest solutions to increasing statistical power. While these concepts are extremely ethically important, I want to move on to emphasizing how registered reports serve researchers and their careers.
Why Researchers Should Be Using Registered Reports
HARKing is not just "bad science" but it can be actively harmful to young and early career researchers. Redefining a research study after data collection can be iterative and take years in some cases. Young researchers that have put their time and energy into said data collection can easily be held back from publication or replaced as first author if significant "story changes" are undertaken. In some cases, researchers may have a clear research question and approach in mind, only to have the report-writing phase of research undermine their study goals and design when collaborating authors are not aligned in their research goals.
In order to avoid months, and in some cases years, of research efforts yielding no active benefits for young researchers, I would highly recommend that every early-career scientist engages in registered reports to be sure that all authors are aligned in their research goals for a project before data collection begins. It is also a wonderful opportunity for researchers in your field to be aware of your work and research goals for networking and input from other perspectives in your field. Furthermore the scheduled approach ensures that the writing process does not drag out too long and your research efforts can be recognized.
Take-Aways
Registered reports are a wonderful way to support research integrity, but more than that, they offer a form of productive accountability for researchers. While they provide accountability, they also allow space for serendipity. I would highly recommend that any young and early career researchers tap into this amazing tool to protect your research efforts and ensure that you are putting your energy into projects that yield meaningful scientific contributions.
Comments