What’s next for Registered Reports?
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Registered Reports are designed to address biases in the standard publishing model and improve the quality of research.
“Registered Reports (RRs) are designed to address these biases and improve the quality of research 1-3 .”
From Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
Registered Reports were conceived to alter the incentives for authors and journals away from producing novel, positive, clean findings and toward conducting and publishing rigorous research on important questions.
“Registered Reports were conceived to alter the incentives for authors and journals away from producing novel, positive, clean findings and toward conducting and publishing rigorous research on important questions 1-3 .”
From Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
Incentive focused innovations such as Registered Reports can shift reward away from achieving exciting results and toward asking important questions and designing rigorous studies.
“Incentive focused innovations such as Registered Reports can shift reward away from achieving exciting results and toward asking important questions and designing rigorous studies to investigate them”
From Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology (2021) · cites this paper as Chambers, 2019
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond
Allen, C., & Mehler, D. M. A. (2019) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246 · Cited by 608 · see citing works
An Introduction to Registered Replication Reports at Perspectives on Psychological Science
Simons, D. J., Holcombe, A. O., & Spellman, B. A. (2014) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691614543974 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Opto nongenetics inhibition of neuronal firing
Ouares, K. A., Beurrier, C., Canepari, M., Laverne, G., & Kuczewski, N. (2018) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.14251 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Improving the Efficiency of Grant and Journal Peer Review: Registered Reports Funding
Munafo, M. R. (2017) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntx081 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Evaluating Registered Reports: A Naturalistic Comparative Study of Article Impact
Hopun, L. T., Singleton Thorn, F., Nosek, B. A., & Errington, T. M. (2017) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/5y8w7 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Special Issue of Social Psychology on “Replications of Important Results in Social Psychology”
(2013) · Social Psychology · doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000143 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Protocol review at The Lancet: 1997–2015
Lancet, T. (2015) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01131-9 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
(2019) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0652-0 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Nature Hum. Behav. 3, 763 (2019).
- Allen, C. & Mehler, D. M. A. PLoS Biol 17, e3000246 (2019).
- Munafò, M. R. Nicotine Tob. Res. 19, 773 (2017).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Holmes, E. A., O'Connor, R. C., Perry, V. H., Tracey, I., Wessely, S., Arseneault, L., Ballard, C., Christensen, H., Cohen Silver, R., Everall, I., et al. (2020) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30168-1 · Cited by 5,715 · see citing works
Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science
Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., Fidler, F., Hilgard, J., Kline Struhl, M., Nuijten, M. B., et al. (2022) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157 · Cited by 770 · see citing works
Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology
Errington, T. M., Mathur, M., Soderberg, C. K., Denis, A., Perfito, N., Iorns, E., & Nosek, B. A. (2021) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.71601 · Cited by 393 · see citing works
“Incentive focused innovations such as Registered Reports can shift reward away from achieving exciting results and toward asking important questions and designing rigorous studies to investigate them (Chambers, 2019; Scheel et al., 2020; Errington et al. eLife 2021;10:e71601.”
BackgroundMethodSoderberg, C. K., Errington, T. M., Schiavone, S. R., Bottesini, J., Thorn, F. S., Vazire, S., Esterling, K. M., & Nosek, B. A. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
Ensuring the quality and specificity of preregistrations
Bakker, M., Veldkamp, C. L. S., van Assen, M. A. L. M., Crompvoets, E. A. V., Ong, H. H., Nosek, B. A., Soderberg, C. K., Mellor, D., & Wicherts, J. M. (2020) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000937 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society
Van Calster, B., Wynants, L., Riley, R. D., van Smeden, M., & Collins, G. S. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.018 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Preregistration of exploratory research: Learning from the golden age of discovery
Dirnagl, U. (2020) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000690 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
The best time to argue about what a replication means? Before you do it
Nosek, B. A., & Errington, T. M. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-020-02142-6 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Mitigating Dataset Harms Requires Stewardship: Lessons from 1000 Papers
Peng, K., Mathur, A., & Narayanan, A. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.02922 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Schulz, R., Langen, G., Prill, R., Cassel, M., & Weissgerber, T. L. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059347 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Research transparency in dental research: A programmatic analysis
Raittio, E., Sofi‐Mahmudi, A., & Uribe, S. E. (2023) · European Journal of Oral Sciences · doi:10.1111/eos.12908 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“Choice-supportive bias” in science: Explanation and mitigation
Kafaee, M., Marhamati, H., & Gharibzadeh, S. (2021) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2021.1872377 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Galli, C., Sala, R., Colangelo, M. T., & Guizzardi, S. (2019) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications7040067 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Schulz, R., Langen, G., Prill, R., Cassel, M., & Weissgerber, T. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.07.20.21260565 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
“Pre-registration and Registered Reports may prevent selective reporting (25,26), which is also known as cherry picking.”
Background
- Authors
- Chambers, C.
- Affiliations
- Cardiff University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Chambers, Chris
- ORCID
- Chambers, Chris
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2019-09-10
- Volume
- 573
- Issue
- 7773
- Pages
- 187-189
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W2914148334
- Cited by
- 154
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 8
- FWCI
- 34.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- research incentives, publication bias, research integrity, open science
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Authorship, Efficiency, Humans, Research, Research Personnel, Reward, Reproducibility of Results, Bias, Peer Review, Research, Mice, Research Report
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
