How can preregistration contribute to research in our field

Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology (CRSP) is a novel journal for preregistered research (so-called registered reports, RR) in the field of social psychology. It offers RR-only publications, with the possibility of adding exploratory analysis and data as well. After submission of introduction, hypotheses, methods, procedure, and analysis plan, submitted manuscripts are reviewed prior to data collection. If the peer review process results in a positive evaluation of the manuscript, an initial publication agreement (IPA) is issued upon which publication of the manuscript (given adherence to the registered protocol) independent of the obtained results is possible. CRSP seeks to complement the publication options in our field by making transparent confirmatory and exploratory research possible.

[1]  Klaus Fiedler,et al.  The Long Way From α-Error Control to Validity Proper , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[2]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Promoting Transparency in Social Science Research , 2014, Science.

[3]  J. Wicherts,et al.  The Rules of the Game Called Psychological Science , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[4]  Reinhard Pekrun,et al.  Research Practices That Can Prevent an Inflation of False-Positive Rates , 2014, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[5]  D. Simons.  The Value of Direct Replication , 2014, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[6]  F. Fidler,et al.  Replication unreliability in psychology: elusive phenomena or "elusive" statistical power? , 2012 .

[7]  K. Jonas,et al.  REPLICABILITY AND MODELS OF PRIMING: WHAT A RESOURCE COMPUTATION FRAMEWORK CAN TELL US ABOUT EXPECTATIONS OF REPLICABILITY , 2014 .

[8]  D. Fanelli.  “Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences , 2010, PloS one.

[9]  P. V. van Lange,et al.  What We Should Expect From Theories in Social Psychology : Truth , Abstraction , Progress , and Applicability As Standards ( TAPAS ) , 2012 .

[10]  E. Wagenmakers.  A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[11]  J. Brooks.  Why most published research findings are false: Ioannidis JP, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece , 2008 .

[12]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  False-Positive Psychology , 2011, Psychological science.

[13]  A. Vickers,et al.  Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. , 1998, Controlled clinical trials.

[14]  Macartan Humphreys,et al.  Fishing, Commitment, and Communication: A Proposal for Comprehensive Nonbinding Research Registration , 2012, Political Analysis.

[15]  D. Wegner,et al.  Six Guidelines for Interesting Research , 2013, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[16]  Alex O Holcombe,et al.  An Introduction to Registered Replication Reports at Perspectives on Psychological Science , 2014, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[17]  Arndt Bröder,et al.  Result-Blind Peer Reviews and Editorial Decisions A Missing Pillar of Scientific Culture , 2013 .

[18]  Klaas Sijtsma,et al.  Playing with Data—Or How to Discourage Questionable Research Practices and Stimulate Researchers to Do Things Right , 2016, Psychometrika.

[19]  H. Pashler,et al.  Is the Replicability Crisis Overblown? Three Arguments Examined , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[20]  P. Lee,et al.  Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[21]  L. J. Chase,et al.  A statistical power analysis of applied psychological research. , 1976 .

[22]  H. Pashler,et al.  Editors’ Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[23]  R. Giner-Sorolla,et al.  Science or Art? How Aesthetic Standards Grease the Way Through the Publication Bottleneck but Undermine Science , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[24]  Matthew C. Makel,et al.  Replications in Psychology Research , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[25]  C. Chambers.  Registered Reports: A new publishing initiative at Cortex , 2013, Cortex.

[26]  Han L. J. van der Maas,et al.  Science Perspectives on Psychological an Agenda for Purely Confirmatory Research on Behalf Of: Association for Psychological Science , 2022 .

[27]  U. Schimmack.  The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles. , 2012, Psychological methods.

[28]  A. Gelman,et al.  The statistical crisis in science , 2014 .

[29]  Encourage Playing with Data and Discourage Questionable Reporting Practices , 2015, Psychometrika.

[30]  R. Rosenthal.  The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results , 1979 .

[31]  Daryl J. Bem,et al.  Writing the Empirical Journal Article , 2021, The Compleat Academic.

[32]  E. Masicampo,et al.  A peculiar prevalence of p values just below .05 , 2012, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.