Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42222493›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2026

Study preregistration: an early example and analysis.

Richard Wiseman, Caroline Watt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Richard WisemanDepartment of Psychology, Sport and Geography, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.
Caroline WattSchool of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preregistration is commonly seen as an effective way of reducing questionable research practices within psychology. This procedure happens prior to data collection/analysis and usually involves either sending in a research plan to a study registry or submitting a registered report. A prototype of registered reports operated within parapsychology long before mainstream psychology, and recent research showed that these reports contained fewer significant results than traditional journal articles. The current study builds on this work by examining the efficacy of another early preregistration procedure within parapsychology, namely the Koestler Parapsychology Unit's Study Registry (KPU SR). This initiative began in 2012, has attracted almost a hundred submissions, and continues to operate. The outcomes of studies preregistered on the KPU SR were compared with those of non-preregistered parapsychology studies published in journals during the same time period. In line with previous work within mainstream psychology, the preregistered studies contained fewer significant results (16%) than non-preregistered experiments (46.6%). The implications of these findings for preregistration are discussed along with suggestions for future research.

Indexed as

ParapsychologyPre-Registration PublicationRegistriesHumansMeta-scienceMethodsParapsychologyPreregistrationPsychologyStudy registration

Identifiers

PMID42222493
PMCPMC13218336

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.