Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40357015›Full record

ReviewBrain communications2025

Practical routes to preregistration: a guide to enhanced transparency and rigour in neuropsychological research.

Richard J Binney, Laura J Smith, Stephanie Rossit, Nele Demeyere, Gemma Learmonth, Elena Olgiati, Ajay D Halai, Elisabeth Rounis, Jonathan Evans, Nicola M J Edelstyn and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Richard J BinneyThe British Neuropsychological Society, Open Research Group, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4474-2922
Laura J SmithThe British Neuropsychological Society, Open Research Group, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3275-1530
Stephanie RossitThe British Neuropsychological Society, Open Research Group, London, UK.
Nele DemeyereNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Oxford University, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0416-5147
Gemma LearmonthThe British Neuropsychological Society, Open Research Group, London, UK.
Elena OlgiatiThe British Neuropsychological Society, Open Research Group, London, UK.
Ajay D HalaiThe British Neuropsychological Society, Open Research Group, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1725-7948
Elisabeth RounisThe British Neuropsychological Society, Open Research Group, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1375-1001
Jonathan EvansSchool of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8TB, UK.
Nicola M J EdelstynThe British Neuropsychological Society, Open Research Group, London, UK.
Robert D McIntoshThe British Neuropsychological Society, Open Research Group, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preregistration is the act of formally documenting a research plan before collecting (or at least before analysing) the data. It allows those reading a final research report to know which aspects of a study were decided before sight of the data, and which were added later. This enables informed evaluation of the severity with which scientific claims have been tested. We, as the British Neuropsychological Society Open Research Group, conducted a survey to explore awareness and adoption of open research practices within our field. Neuropsychology involves the study of relatively rare or hard-to-access participants, creating practical challenges that, according to our survey, are perceived as barriers to preregistration. We survey the available routes to preregistration, and suggest that the barriers are all surmountable in one way or another. However, there is a tension, in that higher levels of bias control require greater restriction over the flexibility of preregistered studies, but such flexibility is often essential for neuropsychological research. Researchers must therefore consider which route provides the right balance of rigour and pragmatic flexibility to render a preregistered project viable for them. By mapping out the issues and potential solutions, and by signposting relevant resources and publication routes, we hope to facilitate well-reasoned decision-making and empower neuropsychologists to enhance the transparency and rigour of their research. Although we focus neuropsychology, our guidance is applicable to any field that studies hard-to-access human samples, or involves arduous or expensive means of data collection.

Indexed as

best practiceclinical scienceopen researchpublication biasreproducibility

Identifiers

PMID40357015
PMCPMC12066951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.