Back to all available

Study preregistration: An early example and analysis

neuroscience
psychology

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.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].