Does preregistration improve the credibility of research findings?
Author(s) / Creator(s)
Rubin, Mark
Abstract / Description
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 1ndings. 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 1ndings 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.
Keyword(s)
preregistration forking paths HARKing multiple testing optional stopping p-hacking publication bias replication crisisPersistent Identifier
Date of first publication
2020-09-18
Journal title
The Quantitative Methods for Psychology
Volume
16
Issue
4
Page numbers
376-390
Publisher
PsychArchives
Publication status
publishedVersion
Review status
peerReviewed
Citation
Rubin, M. (2020). Does preregistration improve the credibility of research findings? The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 16(4), 376–390. http://dx.doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.4839
-
Rubin (2020).pdfAdobe PDF - 357.16KBMD5: ce9c1ad727445f198db8006c6388bf28Description: Does preregistration improve the credibility of research findings?
-
There are no other versions of this object.
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Rubin, Mark
-
PsychArchives acquisition timestamp2021-05-17T07:03:25Z
-
Made available on2021-05-17T07:03:25Z
-
Date of first publication2020-09-18
-
Abstract / DescriptionPreregistration 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 1ndings. 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 1ndings 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.en
-
Publication statuspublishedVersionen
-
Review statuspeerRevieweden
-
External description on another websitehttps://sites.google.com/site/markrubinsocialpsychresearch/replication-crisis/preregistration-criticisms
-
CitationRubin, M. (2020). Does preregistration improve the credibility of research findings? The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 16(4), 376–390. http://dx.doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.4839en
-
ISSN2292-1354
-
Persistent Identifierhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12034/4276
-
Persistent Identifierhttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.4839
-
Language of contenteng
-
PublisherPsychArchivesen
-
Keyword(s)preregistrationen
-
Keyword(s)forking pathsen
-
Keyword(s)HARKingen
-
Keyword(s)multiple testingen
-
Keyword(s)optional stoppingen
-
Keyword(s)p-hackingen
-
Keyword(s)publication biasen
-
Keyword(s)replication crisisen
-
Dewey Decimal Classification number(s)150
-
TitleDoes preregistration improve the credibility of research findings?en
-
DRO typearticleen
-
Leibniz subject classificationPsychologiede_DE
-
Issue4
-
Journal titleThe Quantitative Methods for Psychologyen
-
Page numbers376-390
-
Volume16
-
Visible tag(s)Version of Record
-
Visible tag(s)preregistrationen
-
Visible tag(s)forking pathsen
-
Visible tag(s)HARKingen
-
Visible tag(s)multiple testingen
-
Visible tag(s)optional stoppingen
-
Visible tag(s)p-hackingen
-
Visible tag(s)publication biasen
-
Visible tag(s)replication crisisen