Authors who wish to publish their work with us have the option of a registered report. With this format, acceptance in principle happens before the research outcomes are known. As a result, publication bias is neutralized, as are incentives for practices that undermine the validity of scientific research.
Registered Reports are a new article format where peer-review precedes data collection. The decision to publish is based on a research protocol that documents the research question, clear hypotheses, and an exact analysis plan. We champion Registered Reports at Nature Human Behaviour as part of our commitment to reproducibility and increased scientific rigour. This collection features our published Stage 2 Registered Reports, as well as related editorials, review and opinion content. In-principle accepted Stage 1 protocols that are not under embargo by their authors can be found in a dedicated space on figshare.
As adoption of registered reports is growing, two pieces in this issue take stock, providing recommendations and outlining next steps. We complement these pieces with practical advice on how to prepare a successful stage 1 submission.
The publication of our first two Registered Reports marks a major milestone for Nature Human Behaviour. These studies demonstrate what many researchers know, but is often hidden from the published literature: confirmatory research doesn’t always confirm the authors’ hypotheses.
Comment & Opinion
Registered reports present a substantial departure from traditional publishing models with the goal of enhancing the transparency and credibility of the scientific literature. We map the evolving universe of registered reports to assess their growth, implementation and shortcomings at journals across scientific disciplines.
An influential 2005 study by Kosfeld et al. suggested that oxytocin increases trust in strangers. This registered replication study by some of the original authors found no effect of oxytocin on trusting behaviour under the same conditions.
In this Registered Report, Berens et al. demonstrate that forgetting predominantly involves losses in memory accessibility with little or no change in memory precision.
Whether testosterone changes responses in moral dilemmas is a long-standing question. In a Registered Report, Brannon and colleagues show that unexpectedly, exogenous testosterone increased sensitivity to norms in moral dilemmas.
Are people who know their own abilities better psychologically adjusted than people holding inaccurate views? This Registered Report by He and Côté finds no evidence of strong associations, calling this longstanding proposal into question.