ArticleRoyal Society open science2022
A survey on how preregistration affects the research workflow: better science but more work.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing Web Links Used in Digital Vaccination Invitations to Raise Trust and Booking Intention: 3 Online Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
- The Uptake of Preregistration, and Its Impact on the Proportion of Supported Hypotheses, in Sports Science.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- A survey of researchers' attitudes to preregistration in animal research reveals multiple perceived barriers to adoption.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- An international consensus on core reproducibility items in research.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Transparency in the secondary use of health data: assessing the status quo of guidance and best practices.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Concerns About Theorizing, Relevance, Generalizability, and Methodology Across Two Crises in Social Psychology.International review of social psychology · 2025Article
- Open science practices among early-career human-computer interaction researchers in the US.PloS one · 2025Article
- Preregistration in practice: A comparison of preregistered and non-preregistered studies in psychology.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Supporting study registration to reduce research waste.Nature ecology & evolution · 2024Review
- Simulation studies of social systems: telling the story based on provenance patterns.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- The bioinformatics landscape in environmental omics: Lessons from a national ELIXIR survey.iScience · 2024Article
- Demystifying Open Science in health psychology and behavioral medicine: a practical guide to Registered Reports and Data Notes.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2024Article
- Reducing bias in secondary data analysis via an Explore and Confirm Analysis Workflow (ECAW): a proposal and survey of observational researchers.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Preregistration: Practical Considerations for Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023Article
- Using preregistration as a tool for transparent fNIRS study design.Neurophotonics · 2023Article
- Registered report: Survey on attitudes and experiences regarding preregistration in psychological research.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The preregistration of research protocols and analysis plans is a main reform innovation to counteract confirmation bias in the social and behavioural sciences. While theoretical reasons to preregister are frequently discussed in the literature, the individually experienced advantages and disadvantages of this method remain largely unexplored. The goal of this exploratory study was to identify the perceived benefits and challenges of preregistration from the researcher's perspective. To this end, we surveyed 355 researchers, 299 of whom had used preregistration in their own work. The researchers indicated the experienced or expected effects of preregistration on their workflow. The results show that experiences and expectations are mostly positive. Researchers in our sample believe that implementing preregistration improves or is likely to improve the quality of their projects. Criticism of preregistration is primarily related to the increase in work-related stress and the overall duration of the project. While the benefits outweighed the challenges for the majority of researchers with preregistration experience, this was not the case for the majority of researchers without preregistration experience. The experienced advantages and disadvantages identified in our survey could inform future efforts to improve preregistration and thus help the methodology gain greater acceptance in the scientific community.
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.