Preregistration and Registered Reports

This page explains preregistration and Registered Reports, how they differ, and when each approach can help improve research credibility. It should be the central explanation of these practices, linked from the toolkits and audience pages.

Why planning matters

Most researchers learn early that experiments should be planned before they are carried out. In practice, the pressure to publish a clear, positive and novel story can make it tempting to adjust hypotheses, analyses or sample sizes after looking at the data. These practices can happen unintentionally, but they can still undermine reliability.

HARKing, or hypothesising after the results are known, occurs when a hypothesis is presented as if it was specified in advance even though it was developed after seeing the results. P-hacking, also known as data fishing or data dredging, occurs when data are analysed in multiple ways until a statistically significant or interesting result appears, and only the successful analysis is reported. Preregistration and Registered Reports help reduce these risks by making the planned research process visible before the results are known.

What is preregistration?

Preregistration is the act of stating a research plan before conducting a study or before analysing existing data. A preregistration commonly includes the rationale, research question, hypotheses, methods, sample size or number of replicates, inclusion and exclusion criteria, outcome measures and planned statistical analyses.

A preregistration is usually posted to an independent registry such as the Open Science Framework, AsPredicted or ClinicalTrials.gov. Some registries allow embargoes, which can help address concerns about being scooped while still creating a time-stamped record of the plan.

Why preregister?

Preregistration provides a time-stamped account of the original research plan, helps distinguish planned analyses from exploratory analyses, reduces opportunities for undisclosed analytical flexibility, and encourages careful thought before data collection begins. It can also invite feedback from the wider community at a stage when changes can still improve the study.

Research rarely goes exactly to plan. Preregistration does not prevent researchers from responding to unexpected events or conducting additional exploratory analyses. The important point is to report deviations transparently, explain why they occurred and distinguish them from the original plan.

What are Registered Reports?

Registered Reports are a publication format that incorporates peer review before results are known. The format was first introduced by Cortex in 2013 and is now offered by many journals. The key feature is that publication is based primarily on the importance of the research question and the quality of the methods, not on whether the results are positive, novel or statistically significant.

Stage 1 review considers the introduction, methods, proposed analysis and any pilot data. If the protocol is strong, the journal offers in-principle acceptance. The researchers then conduct the study. At Stage 2, the full manuscript is reviewed to confirm that the approved study was carried out appropriately and that conclusions are supported by the evidence.

Benefits of Registered Reports

Registered Reports allow study design to be improved through peer review before data collection. They reduce publication bias by committing to publish sound studies regardless of outcome. They also encourage clear methods, open data and materials where appropriate, and transparent reporting of deviations or exploratory analyses.

The format does not prevent creativity. Researchers can include additional exploratory analyses and can explain deviations caused by practical or scientific developments. The requirement is transparency, not rigidity.

[Review] The old page pointed to Brain and Neuroscience Advances as a journal offering Registered Reports. The BNA should now present this as part of the journal’s archive and credibility legacy, and link to current lists of journals that accept Registered Reports.

Registered Reports funding partnerships

Some funders have explored partnerships that align grant review with Registered Reports. The aim is to reduce duplication in peer review and support stronger study design earlier in the research process. Examples in the original microsite included Cancer Research UK’s Registered Reports pilot with a consortium of journals, and BrainsCAN at Western University Canada, where funder and journal review processes were linked.

[Review] Update this section with current examples and remove any schemes that have ended or changed substantially.

Examples of Registered Reports in neuroscience

Henson RN, Suri S, Knights E et al. Effect of apolipoprotein E polymorphism on cognition and brain in the Cambridge Centre for Ageing and Neuroscience cohort. Brain and Neuroscience Advances, 2020. doi:10.1177/2398212820961704
Boayue NM, Csifcsák G, Aslaksen P, Turi Z, Antal A, Groot J et al. Increasing propensity to mind-wander by transcranial direct current stimulation? A registered report. European Journal of Neuroscience, 2020. doi:10.1111/ejn.14347
Puhlmann LMC et al. Association between hippocampal structure and serum Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor in healthy adults: A registered report. NeuroImage, 2021. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118011
Loenneker HD, Artemenko C, Willmes K, Liepelt-Scarfone I and Nuerk HC. Deficits in or preservation of basic number processing in Parkinson’s disease? A registered report. Journal of Neuroscience Research, 2021. doi:10.1002/jnr.24907
Tibon R, Greve A, Humphreys G, Quent A and Henson RN. Do activations and representations differ during successful retrieval from episodic versus semantic memory? Stage 1 manuscript: https://osf.io/az2df

References and links

Center for Open Science preregistration: https://www.cos.io/initiatives/prereg
Center for Open Science Registered Reports: https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports
UKRN primer on preregistration and Registered Reports: https://osf.io/8v2n7/
Chambers CD and Tzavella L. The past, present and future of Registered Reports. Nature Human Behaviour, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01193-7
Ellis RJ. Questionable Research Practices, Low Statistical Power, and Other Obstacles to Replicability: Why Preclinical Neuroscience Research Would Benefit from Registered Reports. eNeuro.