Which statement best describes a registered report?

Which statement best describes a registered report?

• A. an article outlining an intended research process that is reviewed after data collection.
• B. an article outlining an intended research process that is reviewed before data collection.
• C. an article that reports only significant findings.
• D. an article focusing on methods without data collection.

Answer: (B)

Registered reports are a publication format where the research plan—including the research question, design, and statistical analysis plan—is reviewed and accepted before data collection begins. This upfront review aims to commit researchers to their planned methods, and the journal often provides in-principle acceptance based on the quality of the protocol, not the study outcomes. After data are collected and analyzed, the manuscript undergoes a second review to ensure the work was conducted as planned and that results are reported transparently, with deviations explained if they occurred. That is why describing a study as outlining an intended research process that is reviewed before data collection best captures the concept. The other descriptions don’t fit this approach. Reviewing after data collection contradicts the preregistration spirit. Emphasizing only significant findings would undermine the goal of reducing publication bias. Focusing on methods without data collection misses the full experimental process that registered reports commit to evaluating and publishing.

Registered reports are a publication format where the research plan—including the research question, design, and statistical analysis plan—is reviewed and accepted before data collection begins. This upfront review aims to commit researchers to their planned methods, and the journal often provides in-principle acceptance based on the quality of the protocol, not the study outcomes. After data are collected and analyzed, the manuscript undergoes a second review to ensure the work was conducted as planned and that results are reported transparently, with deviations explained if they occurred. That is why describing a study as outlining an intended research process that is reviewed before data collection best captures the concept.

The other descriptions don’t fit this approach. Reviewing after data collection contradicts the preregistration spirit. Emphasizing only significant findings would undermine the goal of reducing publication bias. Focusing on methods without data collection misses the full experimental process that registered reports commit to evaluating and publishing.