ArticlePloS one2023
Registered report: Survey on attitudes and experiences regarding preregistration in psychological research.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methodological quality in randomised clinical trials of mental health apps: systematic review and longitudinal analysis.BMJ mental health · 2025Pooled it
- A survey of researchers' attitudes to preregistration in animal research reveals multiple perceived barriers to adoption.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- The long horizon of animal study preregistration: Attitudes, barriers, and myths.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Ten particularly frequent and consequential questionable research practices in quantitative research: Bias mechanisms, preventive strategies, and a simulation-based framework.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- How Transparent and Reproducible Are Studies That Use Animal Models of Opioid Addiction?Addiction biology · 2025Article
- Transparency in the secondary use of health data: assessing the status quo of guidance and best practices.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Open science practices among early-career human-computer interaction researchers in the US.PloS one · 2025Article
- Supporting study registration to reduce research waste.Nature ecology & evolution · 2024Review
- Correction: Registered report: Survey on attitudes and experiences regarding preregistration in psychological research.PloS one · 2024Article
- Looking for a broader mindset in psychometrics: the case for more participatory measurement practices.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreregistration, the open science practice of specifying and registering details of a planned study prior to knowing the data, increases the transparency and reproducibility of research. Large-scale replication attempts for psychological results yielded shockingly low success rates and contributed to an increasing demand for open science practices among psychologists. However, preregistering one's studies is still not the norm in the field. Here, we conducted a study to explore possible reasons for this discrepancy.
methodsIn a mixed-methods approach, we conducted an online survey assessing attitudes, motivations, and perceived obstacles with respect to preregistration. Respondents (N = 289) were psychological researchers that were recruited through their publications on Web of Science, PubMed, PSYNDEX, and PsycInfo, and preregistrations on OSF Registries. Based on the theory of planned behavior, we predicted that positive attitudes (moderated by the perceived importance of preregistration) as well as a favorable subjective norm and higher perceived behavioral control positively influence researchers' intention to preregister (directional hypothesis 1). Furthermore, we expected an influence of research experience on attitudes and perceived motivations and obstacles regarding preregistration (non-directional hypothesis 2). We analyzed these hypotheses with multiple regression models and included preregistration experience as a control variable.
resultsResearchers' attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and the perceived importance of preregistration significantly predicted researchers' intention to use preregistration in the future (see hypothesis 1). Research experience influenced both researchers' attitudes and their perception of motivations to preregister, but not the perception of obstacles (see hypothesis 2). Descriptive reports on researchers' attitudes, motivations and obstacles regarding preregistration are provided. DISCUSSION: Many researchers had already preregistered and had a rather positive attitude toward preregistration. Nevertheless, several obstacles were identified that may be addressed to improve and foster preregistration.
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.