ArticleRoyal Society open science2020
The effect of preregistration on trust in empirical research findings: results of a registered report.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- How methodological cues shape trust in psychological research and legal judgements: a vignette study.Royal Society open science · 2026Article
- Advancing physiology through transparency: Celebrating our first registered report.Experimental physiology · 2025Article
- Shedding light on functional near-infrared spectroscopy and open science practices.Neurophotonics · 2023Article
- Using preregistration as a tool for transparent fNIRS study design.Neurophotonics · 2023Article
- The process of replication target selection in psychology: what to consider?Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Registered report: Survey on attitudes and experiences regarding preregistration in psychological research.PloS one · 2023Article
- Open science and public trust in science: Results from two studies.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2022Article
- A survey on how preregistration affects the research workflow: better science but more work.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Assessing Open Science practices in physical activity behaviour change intervention evaluations.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2022Article
- Improving the reproducibility of findings by updating research methodology.Quality & quantity · 2022Article
- Preregistration and Registered Reports: A Key Pathway to Enhancing Robustness and Replicability in Mental Health Research.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2021Article
- Registered Report Protocol: Survey on attitudes and experiences regarding preregistration in psychological research.PloS one · 2021Article
- A tutorial on Bayes Factor Design Analysis using an informed prior.Behavior research methods · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The crisis of confidence has undermined the trust that researchers place in the findings of their peers. In order to increase trust in research, initiatives such as preregistration have been suggested, which aim to prevent various questionable research practices. As it stands, however, no empirical evidence exists that preregistration does increase perceptions of trust. The picture may be complicated by a researcher's familiarity with the author of the study, regardless of the preregistration status of the research. This registered report presents an empirical assessment of the extent to which preregistration increases the trust of 209 active academics in the reported outcomes, and how familiarity with another researcher influences that trust. Contrary to our expectations, we report ambiguous Bayes factors and conclude that we do not have strong evidence towards answering our research questions. Our findings are presented along with evidence that our manipulations were ineffective for many participants, leading to the exclusion of 68% of complete datasets, and an underpowered design as a consequence. We discuss other limitations and confounds which may explain why the findings of the study deviate from a previously conducted pilot study. We reflect on the benefits of using the registered report submission format in light of our results. The OSF page for this registered report and its pilot can be found here: http://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/B3K75.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.