How to Crack Pre-registration: Toward Transparent and Open Science

Yamada, Yuki

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01831

Cited by 96 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We even called the study "Meta-Prereg" during this process. This motivation of this paper was to demonstrate that new QRPs for manipulating the pre-registration system (Yamada, 2018) as well as traditional QRPs (e.g., Agnoli, Wicherts, Veldkamp, Albiero, & Cubelli, 2017;Motyl, Demos, Carsel, Hanson, Melton, Mueller et al, 2017;Munafò, Nosek, Bishop, Button, Chambers, du Sert et al, 2017;Simmons et al, 2011) can shadow bad research practices even when pre-registration works as intended. In doing so, we suggest the need for the evolution of the preregistration revolution (Nosek, Ebersole, DeHaven, & Mellor, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, pre-registration does have some inherent weaknesses, as it cannot prevent some specific QRPs (Yamada, 2018). For example, researchers can repeat the registered experiments until obtaining a satisfactory result ("infinite re-experimenting," "reset marathon," or "rerolling") and make a reasonable hypothesis that is "inferred" based on observations before pre-registration (PARKing;…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although pre-registration itself has no intrinsic ethical nature, it is problematic to use preregistration to either implicitly or explicitly conflate meaning that "pre-registered = good paper," without considering the possibility that, as a system, it can be cracked through deliberate efforts (Yamada, 2018). Even in studies using pre-registration, research misconduct such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP), as well as QRPs may appear.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the reasons above, the problems with the pre-registration system have been considered in the present paper. Yamada (2018) mentioned the cracks in the pre-registration system, but those concerns were presented in an opinion paper. To promote the awareness of the importance of properly using a pre-registration system throughout the scientific community, there was a need to demonstrate the ability to engage in QRPs for pre-registration.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Questionable research practices following pre-registration

Ikeda¹,

Xu²,

FUJI³

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The credibility of psychological findings can be undermined by a history of questionable research practices (QRPs) of researchers. One remedy for this problem is the use of the pre-registration of studies in which a research protocol is registered before the experiment starts. However, the current style of pre-registration can be negatively affected by other QRPs. The purpose of this paper was to demonstrate the ability to engage in QRPs even after a study has been pre-registered. In the demonstration study, we used a total of eight QRPs to obtain statistically meaningful results that supported an ad hoc hypothesis. Major system updates such as pre-registration, peer review, and evaluation are required to address these harmful practices. We hope that the present demonstration study gives momentum to further discussions on next-generation research practices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Questionable research practices following pre-registration

Ikeda¹,

Xu²,

FUJI³

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(2020). Nature, 578, 8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00309-9 Nitta, H., Tomita, H., Zhang, Y., Zhou, X., & Yamada, Y. (2018).…”

unclassified

Experimental psychologists also want to submit papers comfortably

Sasaki¹,

Yamada²

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Preregistration Is Neither Sufficient nor Necessary for Good Science

Pham

2021

J Consum Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To address widespread perceptions of a reproducibility crisis in the social sciences, a growing number of scholars recommend the systematic preregistration of empirical studies. The purpose of this article is to contribute to an epistemological dialogue on the value of preregistration in consumer research by identifying the limitations, drawbacks, and potential adverse effects of a preregistration system. After a brief review of some of the implementation challenges that commonly arise with preregistration, we raise three levels of issues with a system of preregistration. First, we identify its limitations as a means of advancing consumer knowledge, thus questioning the sufficiency of preregistration in promoting good consumer science. Second, we elaborate on why consumer science can progress even in the absence of preregistration, thereby also questioning the necessity of preregistration in promoting good consumer science. Third, we discuss serious potential adverse effects of preregistration, both at the individual researcher level and at the level of the field as a whole. We conclude by offering a broader perspective on the narrower role that preregistration can play within the general pursuit of building robust and useful knowledge about consumers.

show abstract

How to Crack Pre-registration: Toward Transparent and Open Science

Cited by 96 publications

References 14 publications

Questionable research practices following pre-registration

Questionable research practices following pre-registration

Experimental psychologists also want to submit papers comfortably

Preregistration Is Neither Sufficient nor Necessary for Good Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About