IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/metaar/dhc2e.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Easy preregistration will benefit any research

Author

Listed:
  • Mellor, David Thomas

    (Center for Open Science)

  • Nosek, Brian A.

    (University of Virginia)

Abstract

There is shared support by Riley et al., (RRL1) and Wolfe & Kanwisher (WK2) for the principles to “increase transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of science” and “[fulfill] an inherent commitment to study participants and the public”1. These principles are motivating the expansion of NIH Guidelines requiring study registration and outcome reporting into basic science. Prospective study registration (i.e. “preregistration”) distinguishes confirmatory tests of predictions from discoveries resulting from exploration3. Unintentionally conflating these modes of research increases the publishability of findings at the expense of their credibility4. Further, outcome reporting, whether or not the study is ultimately published, addresses publication bias and selective ignoring of null results5. Widespread preregistration and outcome reporting may address key contributing causes of the so-called “Reproducibility Crisis”6, and would increase the interpretability of most empirical research.

Suggested Citation

  • Mellor, David Thomas & Nosek, Brian A., 2018. "Easy preregistration will benefit any research," MetaArXiv dhc2e, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:metaar:dhc2e
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/dhc2e
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5dc4228abb21c7000c886957/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/dhc2e?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matthews, Michael J. & Anglin, Aaron H. & Drover, Will & Wolfe, Marcus T., 2024. "Just a number? Using artificial intelligence to explore perceived founder age in entrepreneurial fundraising," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 39(1).
    2. Markku Maula & Wouter Stam, 2020. "Enhancing Rigor in Quantitative Entrepreneurship Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(6), pages 1059-1090, November.
    3. Aguinis, Herman & Banks, George C. & Rogelberg, Steven G. & Cascio, Wayne F., 2020. "Actionable recommendations for narrowing the science-practice gap in open science," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 27-35.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:metaar:dhc2e. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.