ReviewNature human behaviour2022
The past, present and future of Registered Reports.
Review in Nature human behaviour, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 128 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
128 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Heartbeat-Evoked Responses in M/EEG: A Systematic Review of Methods With Suggestions for Analysis and Reporting.Psychophysiology · 2026Pooled it
- Self-navigating the "Island of Reil": a systematic review of real-time fMRI neurofeedback training of insula activity.Translational psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Stress management interventions for university students in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating semantic control with transcranial magnetic stimulation: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Pooled it
- Causal involvement of the left angular gyrus in higher functions as revealed by transcranial magnetic stimulation: a systematic review.Brain structure & function · 2023Pooled it
- Neurofeedback and attention modulate somatosensory alpha oscillations but not pain perception.PLoS biology · 2025Trial
- Open science in dementia care embedded pragmatic clinical trials.Psychology and aging · 2022Trial
- Review
- Reproducibility in biomedical research.Nature medicine · 2026Review
- Improving science will require more than just training.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2026Article
- How Registered Reports can improve trust in machine learning research.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Discovery Stack Pilot demonstrates the feasibility and outcomes of a scientist-designed peer-review model that separates quality and impact.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Commentary: Making Patient Data Count-Opportunities and Challenges for Open Science in Clinical Psychology.Journal of clinical psychology · 2026Article
- Open Science Policies and Practices Among Medical Journals.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Is my loneliness killing me? Effects of loneliness and social isolation on transitions between cognitive status categories and death.Journal of personality and social psychology · 2026Article
- TOP 2025: An update to the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Data Analysis Planning and Reporting for Confirmatory Multi-Lab Preclinical Trials: A Tutorial.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2026Review
- Why Radiomics Rarely Reaches the Clinic: Reproducibility, Validation, and Evidence Gap-A Critical Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Toward next-generation stress generation research: Expert consensus methodological guidelines.Journal of psychopathology and clinical science · 2026Article
- Assessment of Selective Reporting Biases in Studies Included in Campbell Systematic Reviews: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
68 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34782730What 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.