» Articles » PMID: 33648609

Steps Toward Preregistration of Research on Research Integrity

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2021 Mar 2
PMID 33648609
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: A proposal to encourage the preregistration of research on research integrity was developed and adopted as the Amsterdam Agenda at the 5th World Conference on Research Integrity (Amsterdam, 2017). This paper reports on the degree to which abstracts of the 6th World Conference in Research Integrity (Hong Kong, 2019) reported on preregistered research.

Methods: Conference registration data on participants presenting a paper or a poster at 6th WCRI were made available to the research team. Because the data set was too small for inferential statistics this report is limited to a basic description of results and some recommendations that should be considered when taking further steps to improve preregistration.

Results: 19% of the 308 presenters preregistered their research. Of the 56 usable cases, less than half provided information on the six key elements of the Amsterdam Agenda. Others provided information that invalidated their data, such as an uninformative URL. There was no discernable difference between qualitative and quantitative research.

Conclusions: Some presenters at the WCRI have preregistered their research on research integrity, but further steps are needed to increase frequency and completeness of preregistration. One approach to increase preregistration would be to make it a requirement for research presented at the World Conferences on Research Integrity.

Citing Articles

Direct biomechanical manipulation of human gait stability: A systematic review.

Sterke B, Jabeen S, Baines P, Vallery H, Ribbers G, Heijenbrok-Kal M PLoS One. 2024; 19(7):e0305564.

PMID: 38990959 PMC: 11239080. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305564.

References
1.
. PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015; 349(6251):aac4716. DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716. View

2.
Wicherts J, Veldkamp C, Augusteijn H, Bakker M, van Aert R, van Assen M . Degrees of Freedom in Planning, Running, Analyzing, and Reporting Psychological Studies: A Checklist to Avoid -Hacking. Front Psychol. 2016; 7:1832. PMC: 5122713. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01832. View

3.
Kerr N . HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2005; 2(3):196-217. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4. View

4.
Munafo M, Nosek B, Bishop D, Button K, Chambers C, Percie du Sert N . A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 2021; 1:0021. PMC: 7610724. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021. View

5.
van der Steen J, Ter Riet G, van den Bogert C, Bouter L . Causes of reporting bias: a theoretical framework. F1000Res. 2019; 8:280. PMC: 6713068. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.18310.2. View