top banner top banner
index
RegularArticles
ReplicationStudies
Vignettes
EditorialBoard
Instructions4Authors
JournalGuidelines
Messages
Submission

Search publications

Does preregistration improve the credibility of research findings?

Full text PDF
Bibliographic information: BibTEX format RIS format XML format APA style
Cited references information: BibTEX format APA style
Doi: 10.20982/tqmp.16.4.p376

Rubin, Mark
376-390
Keywords: forking paths , HARKing , multiple testing , optional stopping , $p$-hacking , preregistration , publication bias
(no sample data)   (no appendix)

Preregistration entails researchers registering their planned research hypotheses, methods, and analyses in a time-stamped document before they undertake their data collection and analyses. This document is then made available with the published research report to allow readers to identify discrepancies between what the researchers originally planned to do and what they actually ended up doing. This historical transparency is supposed to facilitate judgments about the credibility of the research findings. The present article provides a critical review of 17 of the reasons behind this argument. The article covers issues such as HARKing, multiple testing, p-hacking, forking paths, optional stopping, researchers' biases, selective reporting, test severity, publication bias, and replication rates. It is concluded that preregistration's historical transparency does not facilitate judgments about the credibility of research findings when researchers provide contemporary transparency in the form of (a) clear rationales for current hypotheses and analytical approaches, (b) public access to research data, materials, and code, and (c) demonstrations of the robustness of research conclusions to alternative interpretations and analytical approaches.


Pages © TQMP;
Website last modified: 2020-09-14.
Template last modified: 2019-03-03>.
Page consulted on .
Be informed of the upcoming issues with RSS feed: RSS icon RSS