Literature DB >> 34782730

The past, present and future of Registered Reports.

Christopher D Chambers1, Loukia Tzavella2.   

Abstract

Registered Reports are a form of empirical publication in which study proposals are peer reviewed and pre-accepted before research is undertaken. By deciding which articles are published based on the question, theory and methods, Registered Reports offer a remedy for a range of reporting and publication biases. Here, we reflect on the history, progress and future prospects of the Registered Reports initiative and offer practical guidance for authors, reviewers and editors. We review early evidence that Registered Reports are working as intended, while at the same time acknowledging that they are not a universal solution for irreproducibility. We also consider how the policies and practices surrounding Registered Reports are changing, or must change in the future, to address limitations and adapt to new challenges. We conclude that Registered Reports are promoting reproducibility, transparency and self-correction across disciplines and may help reshape how society evaluates research and researchers.
© 2021. Springer Nature Limited.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34782730     DOI: 10.1038/s41562-021-01193-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Hum Behav        ISSN: 2397-3374


  61 in total

Review 1.  Publication bias in ecology and evolution: an empirical assessment using the 'trim and fill' method.

Authors:  Michael D Jennions; Anders P Møller
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2002-05

2.  Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling.

Authors:  Leslie K John; George Loewenstein; Drazen Prelec
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2012-04-16

3.  The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis.

Authors:  Jelte M Wicherts; Denny Borsboom; Judith Kats; Dylan Molenaar
Journal:  Am Psychol       Date:  2006-10

Review 4.  Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience.

Authors:  Katherine S Button; John P A Ioannidis; Claire Mokrysz; Brian A Nosek; Jonathan Flint; Emma S J Robinson; Marcus R Munafò
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 34.870

5.  Social science. Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer.

Authors:  Annie Franco; Neil Malhotra; Gabor Simonovits
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  "Positive" results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences.

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-04-07       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  A manifesto for reproducible science.

Authors:  Marcus R Munafò; Brian A Nosek; Dorothy V M Bishop; Katherine S Button; Christopher D Chambers; Nathalie Percie du Sert; Uri Simonsohn; Eric-Jan Wagenmakers; Jennifer J Ware; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2017-01-10

8.  Evidence of Experimental Bias in the Life Sciences: Why We Need Blind Data Recording.

Authors:  Luke Holman; Megan L Head; Robert Lanfear; Michael D Jennions
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2015-07-08       Impact factor: 8.029

9.  p-Curve and p-Hacking in Observational Research.

Authors:  Stephan B Bruns; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution.

Authors:  Hannah Fraser; Tim Parker; Shinichi Nakagawa; Ashley Barnett; Fiona Fidler
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-16       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  10 in total

1.  Questionable Research Practices, Low Statistical Power, and Other Obstacles to Replicability: Why Preclinical Neuroscience Research Would Benefit from Registered Reports.

Authors:  Randall J Ellis
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2022-08-03

Review 2.  Psychology needs to get tired of winning.

Authors:  Gerald J Haeffel
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2022-06-22       Impact factor: 3.653

Review 3.  Open and reproducible science practices in psychoneuroendocrinology: Opportunities to foster scientific progress.

Authors:  Maria Meier; Tina B Lonsdorf; Sonia J Lupien; Tobias Stalder; Sebastian Laufer; Maurizio Sicorello; Roman Linz; Lara M C Puhlmann
Journal:  Compr Psychoneuroendocrinol       Date:  2022-05-30

Review 4.  Causal involvement of the left angular gyrus in higher functions as revealed by transcranial magnetic stimulation: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jennifer Wagner; Elena Rusconi
Journal:  Brain Struct Funct       Date:  2022-10-19       Impact factor: 3.748

Review 5.  Individual integrity and public morality in scientific publishing.

Authors:  Sergio Della-Sala
Journal:  Dement Neuropsychol       Date:  2022-05-13

6.  Trinity review: integrating Registered Reports with research ethics and funding reviews.

Authors:  Yuki Mori; Kaito Takashima; Kohei Ueda; Kyoshiro Sasaki; Yuki Yamada
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2022-05-19

7.  A network of change: united action on research integrity.

Authors:  Thomas Rhys Evans; Madeleine Pownall; Elizabeth Collins; Emma L Henderson; Jade S Pickering; Aoife O'Mahony; Mirela Zaneva; Matt Jaquiery; Tsvetomira Dumbalska
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2022-04-14

8.  Reforms to improve reproducibility and quality must be coordinated across the research ecosystem: the view from the UKRN Local Network Leads.

Authors:  Suzanne L K Stewart; Charlotte R Pennington; Gonçalo R da Silva; Nick Ballou; Jessica Butler; Zoltan Dienes; Caroline Jay; Stephanie Rossit; Anna Samara
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2022-02-15

9.  What's Right and Wrong in Preclinical Science: A Matter of Principled Investigation.

Authors:  Laura N Smith
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 3.558

10.  Fostering Self-Regulated Learning in Online Environments: Positive Effects of a Web-Based Training With Peer Feedback on Learning Behavior.

Authors:  Henrik Bellhäuser; Patrick Liborius; Bernhard Schmitz
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-04-25
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.