Registered reports were rated higher than typical papers on all nineteen evaluated quality criteria by 353 peer reviewers¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In a metascience comparison in psychology and neuroscience, 353 peer reviewers found registered reports outperformed typical papers on all nineteen criteria evaluated, including methodological quality and overall paper quality. → Preregistration and Registered Reports 2021

Evidence¶

Preregistration and Registered Reports 2021¶

Preregistration and Registered Reports. (2021). https://osf.io/ya594

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

The article reports a metascience comparison by Soderberg et al. (2020) in which "a group of 353 peer reviewers" rated registered reports against non-registered reports. No effect sizes are printed; the article cites it as early promising evidence.

"in a comparison of registered reports and non-registered reports published in psychology and neuroscience, a group of 353 peer reviewers found that registered reports outperformed typical papers on all nineteen criteria evaluated, such as methodological quality and overall paper quality (Soderberg et al, 2020)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A comparison of 193 pre-registered and 193 non-preregistered studies found no significant differences in positive results, effect sizes, or error rates — related
• Offering Open Science Badges is associated with increased uptake of data and materials sharing and preregistration — related