» Articles » PMID: 39258834

On the Use and Misuses of Preregistration: A Reply to Klonsky (2024)

Overview
Journal Assessment
Publisher Sage Publications
Specialties Psychiatry
Psychology
Date 2024 Sep 11
PMID 39258834
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In his commentary, Klonsky outlines several arguments for why preregistration mandates (PRMs) will have a negative impact on the field. Klonsky's overarching concern is that when preregistration ceases to be a tool for research and becomes an indicator of quality itself (a primary example being preregistration badges), it loses its intended benefits. Separate from his concerns surrounding policies such as preregistration badges, Klonsky also critiques the practice of preregistration itself, arguing that it can impede our use of other valuable research tools (e.g., multiverse analyses and exploratory analyses). We provide a response to Klonsky's concerns about preregistration and related policies. First, we provide conceptual clarification on the purpose of preregistration, which was missing in Klonsky's commentary. Second, with a clearer conceptual framework, we not only highlight where some of Klonsky's concerns are warranted but also highlight where Klonsky's concerns, critiques, and proposed alternatives to the use of preregistration fall short. Third, with this conceptual understanding of preregistration, we briefly outline some challenges related to the effective implementation of preregistration in psychological science.

Citing Articles

How to Produce, Identify, and Motivate Robust Psychological Science: A Roadmap and a Response to Vize et al.

Klonsky E Assessment. 2024; 32(2):244-252.

PMID: 39614606 PMC: 11874485. DOI: 10.1177/10731911241299723.

References
1.
Bem D . Feeling the future: experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011; 100(3):407-25. DOI: 10.1037/a0021524. View

2.
Hardwicke T, Wagenmakers E . Reducing bias, increasing transparency and calibrating confidence with preregistration. Nat Hum Behav. 2023; 7(1):15-26. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-022-01497-2. View

3.
van den Akker O, van Assen M, Bakker M, Elsherif M, Wong T, Wicherts J . Preregistration in practice: A comparison of preregistered and non-preregistered studies in psychology. Behav Res Methods. 2023; 56(6):5424-5433. PMC: 11335781. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-023-02277-0. View

4.
Bakker M, Veldkamp C, van Assen M, Crompvoets E, Ong H, Nosek B . Ensuring the quality and specificity of preregistrations. PLoS Biol. 2020; 18(12):e3000937. PMC: 7725296. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000937. View

5.
Soderberg C, Errington T, Schiavone S, Bottesini J, Thorn F, Vazire S . Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model. Nat Hum Behav. 2021; 5(8):990-997. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4. View