Preregistration in Animal Experimentation – A Qualitative Study on Researchers’ Views in Switzerland

Preregistration in Animal Experimentation – A Qualitative Study on Researchers’ Views in Switzerland | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Preregistration in Animal Experimentation – A Qualitative Study on Researchers’ Views in Switzerland Cristina Priboi, Simone Lalor, Giorgia Sarra, Evie Vergauwe, Bernice Elger, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8194213/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Over the past few years, the open science movement has witnessed growing interest from the scientific community in improving replicability and reproducibility in research. Preregistration is considered a valuable tool in promoting transparency on the conduct of research and in reducing questionable research practices. However, despite its benefits, preregistration is still rare in most fields of research, including animal research. Furthermore, there is limited information available on potential facilitators and barriers to preregistration in animal experimentation. Thus, this study addresses a gap in the existing literature by exploring researchers' experiences and views on preregistration, identifying facilitators and barriers, and gathering suggestions for better uptake. Methods This study constitutes the qualitative component of a larger cross-sectional mixed-methods project. Participants were recruited through an item in the online questionnaire of a quantitative survey, and snowballing and purposive sampling were used to increase the initial sample. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Swiss-based researchers who currently or previously held a license for animal experiments, or who worked in animal research. The final sample consisted of 30 interviews, which were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed by two independent researchers using MAXQDA. Results Participants described preregistration as uncommon in animal research, and their views on the practice varied according to prior experience. Those who had previously preregistered studies expressed more positive views, whereas those without such experience were generally more critical. The main barriers to preregistration included administrative burden and time constraints, along with concerns about limited flexibility, and perceived incompatibility with exploratory research. Reported benefits comprise better study planning, adherence to good research practices, increased transparency and accountability, and overall perceived improved research quality. To improve the preregistration process and increase the uptake, participants suggested targeted training, institutional support, integrating preregistration with the existing governmental licensing system for animal experimentation, and maintaining voluntary rather than mandatory participation. Conclusions Animal researchers’ reflections on preregistration provide an invaluable source of information to guide tailored interventions aimed at facilitating broader adoption. Our findings corroborate those from a complementary quantitative survey study, further strengthening the validity and robustness of our conclusions. animal experiments animal research open research practices preregistration transparency open science reproducibility animal welfare Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Background There has been a noticeable transition in recent years to open science practices within the scientific community, with the intention to strengthen scientific rigor and improve the replicability and reproducibility of research. This shift is partly driven by the so-called “replication crisis” ( 1 ), which has shed light on sources of poor reproducibility of research findings, spanning from the humanities ( 2 , 3 ) to biomedical research ( 4 ). Although it is widely recognized that rigor in the design, conduct and reporting of research needs to improve, adoption of open science practices remains uneven across fields of research, with social sciences leading the way ( 5 , 6 ) and biomedical research slower in uptake ( 7 ). One of the most promising and transformative open science practices is preregistration ( 8 ). Defined as the registration of a study’s hypotheses, methods, and planned analyses in open repositories prior to collecting data or conducting data analysis ( 9 – 12 ), preregistration has been reported to help reduce questionable research practices, such as p -hacking, selective reporting, and HARKing (“hypothesizing after the results are known”) ( 11 , 13 – 16 ), as well as reducing publication bias and facilitating the distinction between planned and unplanned (exploratory) analyses, thereby improving scientific rigor ( 8 , 10 , 17 , 18 ). There is growing empirical evidence on the impact of preregistration, indicating that preregistered studies yield fewer significant results and smaller effect sizes than non-preregistered studies, as well as larger sample sizes, better reporting, and higher methodological quality ( 16 , 19 – 25 ). Taken together, these advantages highlight the potential of preregistration in minimizing practices that compromise research integrity by increasing transparency and thereby improving reproducibility in science. The consequences of irreproducible research outcomes are far-reaching, as it undermines scientific credibility ( 26 ), raises ethical concerns ( 27 ), and erodes public trust ( 28 ). Low rates of translation from preclinical to clinical research and poor reproducibility in animal research ( 1 , 29 – 32 ) have also raised concerns about irresponsible use of animals in research and potential risks to which patients in clinical trials are exposed ( 7 , 33 – 35 ). Preregistration could therefore serve as a valuable tool to improve the rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of animal research ( 36 ). Despite the many positive effects of preregistration and the existence of various registries, including two specifically for animal research ( 9 , 12 ), adoption of preregistration has remained low in animal research both in Switzerland ( 37 ) and internationally ( 7 ). Steps towards promoting preregistration have already been taken, with several journals requiring it as part of their publications policies ( 7 ). Furthermore, a report by a U.S. National Institutes of Health working group recommended preregistration for animal studies ( 38 ), and a recent call advocated for its implementation in preclinical research ( 39 ). However, better uptake may depend on overcoming barriers and promoting incentives but presently there is little information on potential barriers and facilitators of preregistration. Improving our understanding of animal researchers’ concerns regarding preregistration could help develop better strategies for increasing the adoption of preregistration in animal research. For this purpose, the current study aimed to: Obtain in-depth information on the experiences of animal researchers with study preregistration. Explore the views of animal researchers on study preregistration. Identify barriers and facilitators of study preregistration as perceived by animal researchers. Collect animal researchers’ suggestions for improving the preregistration process and increasing its uptake. The study used a sample of study directors of animal experiments in Switzerland as a study population. Although some aspects may be specific to Switzerland, the findings of this study should provide valuable insights into the applicability of preregistration in animal research and may help inform policy decisions and infrastructure development. Methods This study is part of a larger cross-sectional mixed-methods project including three components: the current qualitative interview study, a quantitative survey study (37), and a systematic literature review (40). The qualitative interview study was preregistered on the Open Science Framework platform on August 20, 2024 (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KGV6R). A minimal deviation from the preregistered plan was made and is listed in the Additional file 1. This deviation is described following the guideline of Willroth and Atherton (41), and the current paper is reported in accordance with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) guidelines (42). Qualitative approach and research paradigm The study was based on a qualitative design and thematic analysis guided data interpretation. This flexible analytical framework is often used to identify recurring patterns in qualitative data through systematic coding of the interviews, leading to the organization and identification of key themes emerging from participants' narratives (43-45). Furthermore, the study was framed within an interpretivist research paradigm, which assumes that multiple socially constructed realities coexist and enables researchers to develop a contextualized interpretation of the studied phenomena (46, 47). This paradigm was selected to explore participants lived experiences and perceptions of preregistration, emphasizing their subjective understanding rather than the objective measurement of these outcomes. Researcher characteristics and reflexivity All interviews were conducted by a female postdoctoral researcher (CP) with training and experience in qualitative data collection. The interviewer had a background in psychology and experience with preregistration practices but did not have expertise in animal experimentation in Switzerland. To ensure an accurate understanding of the context, she familiarized herself with the Swiss legal framework and procedures for animal research and held regular meetings with the study supervisor (HW) to minimize bias and avoid potential misconceptions. The interviewer had no prior relationship or contact with participants before the interviews, except for three researchers she had briefly met in an academic context. Context This study was conducted in Switzerland where animal research is regulated by the Animal Welfare Act, the Animal Welfare Ordinance, and the Animal Experimentation Ordinance. The Swiss legislation is among the most stringent in the world and seeks to guarantee compliance with good research practice and implementation of the 3R principles (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement). Study directors are legally responsible to ensure that animal experiments are conducted in accordance with the national and cantonal legislation. To be eligible for the role of study director, researchers need a biomedical university degree, a minimum of three years of experience in animal research, and the completion of a certified further education course in laboratory animal science. Participants in this study were drawn from the population of licensed study directors in Switzerland. Sample strategy Targeted study sample Although previous research suggests that thematic saturation is typically achieved with around 15 to 20 interviews (48), a slightly higher number of 32 participants was targeted to capture diversity in preregistration experience, gender, language, and seniority level (Additional file 2). This targeted sample was designed using a hierarchical stratification approach, aiming to include two equally sized subgroups of 16 researchers each – one with and one without prior preregistration experience. The increased number of participants also allowed thematic saturation to be reached within the two subgroups. Furthermore, each subgroup was structured to ensure balanced representation across gender (8 females and 8 males), language region (4 German-speaking and 4 French-speaking within each gender), and seniority (2 early-career and 2 senior researchers within each language group). Language region was classified based on the location of the participants’ institutional affiliation, while seniority was determined by a combination of research experience, leadership responsibilities, and institutional status. Participants holding a professorship or group leadership role were categorized as senior researchers, whereas all others were classified as early-career researchers. Recruitment strategy As this study was embedded in a larger mixed-methods project, participants for the interviews were recruited via an item in the online questionnaire used in the quantitative component, administered between May and June 2024 (37). Interested individuals, or those referring to other animal researchers, were redirected from the survey to a separate page to provide contact information. Their details were stored independently of the survey responses to ensure confidentiality. A total of 38 contacts were collected, of which 37 individuals volunteered for the interview and one animal researcher was suggested as interested. Potential participants were then classified according to their preregistration experience, gender, language, and seniority level. Information on gender, language, and seniority level was extracted from institutional websites, while preregistration experience was assessed when participants provided contact information through the questionnaire (Additional file 3). After the classification, they were randomly selected and invited to participate in the study. Given that only two animal researchers had preregistration experience, snowball and purposive sampling were additionally employed to expand the sample. First, interview participants were invited to name potential participants with preregistration experience. In total, 15 additional researchers were suggested. Second, two registries for animal studies – animalstudyregistry.org and preclinicaltrials.eu – were searched to identify researchers affiliated with Swiss institutions who had preregistration experience. This search yielded four further potential participants. Finally, on October 3, 2024, a follow-up invitation email was sent to participants who had completed the online questionnaire. The message invited researchers with prior preregistration experience to take part in the qualitative study and to share their contact information via a link included in the email. A total of 20 new individuals were identified. All researchers found through these additional recruitment steps were contacted and invited to participate in the qualitative study. Final study sample For the subgroup of researchers without preregistration experience, recruitment proceeded as planned, and the targeted hierarchical stratification was achieved without difficulties. In contrast, for the subgroup with preregistration experience, the final sample did not fully match the targeted stratification. As shown by the quantitative component of the mixed-methods project (37), only 10% ( N = 42) of animal researchers in Switzerland had prior preregistration experience. Given that the population of animal researchers with preregistration experience was very small, it was not feasible to recruit participants who met all predefined strata. Consequently, we encountered considerable difficulty in meeting the stratification requirements envisioned for the subgroup with preregistration experience. While the differences in gender distribution and seniority were minor, larger discrepancies occurred in language region, with almost no preregistration-experienced researchers from the French-speaking part of Switzerland. These differences reflect feasibility constraints in the available population rather than changes to, or deviations from, the preregistered sampling plan. Nevertheless, the missing strata representation was considered acceptable in order to ensure a sufficient number of participants (Additional file 4). Ethical issues pertaining to human subjects The study received ethical approval from the Ethical Commission of the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Bern, Switzerland (Nr. 2024-03-06). All participants were informed about the scope of the study, the parties involved, and the funding source. Written informed consent was signed by all included participants. For the in-person interviews, participants signed the informed consent prior to the interview. For the online interviews, verbal consent was received before the recording began, and participants were instructed to email the signed consent form to the study team following the interview. Data were stored on a secured server at the University of Bern, accessible only to authorized study personnel. The interview recordings were deleted after the publication of the current article. Data collection methods Participants were contacted by email to arrange interview appointments. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted either in person or via Zoom, according to participants’ preferences. Pilot interviews took place between 08.05.2024 and 03.07.2024, while study interviews were held between 04.09.2024 and 10.01.2025. To ensure a consistent understanding of the topic, the definition of preregistration was provided before the interview began (Additional file 5). All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim by one researcher (SL), while a second researcher (CP) reviewed the transcripts for accuracy. Personal information was anonymized during transcription to protect participants’ confidentiality. Data collection instruments and technologies A semi-structured interview guide was developed based on the study objectives and the available literature. The guide was revised in several rounds by the study team and piloted in three interviews that were not included in the final sample. These steps allowed the refinement of the open-ended questions and improved the flow and clarity of the interview structure. Two finalized versions of the guide were used with the study sample, depending on participants’ previous experience with preregistration (Table 1). In addition, a brief questionnaire collecting sociodemographic information was administered, including age, gender, years registered as study director, years of animal research experience, academic age, educational attainment, seniority level, field of animal research, and organizational affiliation. [Insert Table 1 here] Units of study The study units consisted of individual animal researchers who served as study directors and held an active license for animal experimentation either at the time of data collection or in the past, as well as individuals with professional experience in animal research who did not hold such a license. Data processing The qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA was used to assist with the thematic analysis of the interviews (49). This software facilitates the management of qualitative datasets by supporting the systematic application of codes and allowing the exploration and analysis of coded material. Data analysis Following transcription, systematic coding of the data was conducted to identify recurring patterns and themes emerging from participants' narratives. Codes were generated through an iterative process of careful and repeated reading of the transcripts, allowing themes to be inductively derived from the data. Thematic analysis was performed in parallel by two independent coders (CP, GS). To ensure the reliability and validity of the analysis, the coders engaged in regular meetings to discuss and resolve discrepancies in code generation and interpretation until consensus was reached. Analysis continued until no additional themes emerged from the data, suggesting thematic saturation. Techniques to enhance trustworthiness Investigator and data triangulation were implemented to ensure the trustworthiness of the analysis. Data triangulation was established by including participants with diverse preregistration experience, gender, linguistic region, and seniority in the study sample, enabling the comparison of perspectives across these subgroups. Investigator triangulation was achieved by involving three researchers – one with preregistration experience (CP) and two without (SL, GS) – who independently reviewed the transcripts, coded the data, and conducted the thematic analysis, thereby ensuring reliability. Furthermore, the study was preregistered prior to data collection, which enhanced transparency and methodological rigor. A single minimal deviation from the preregistered plan occurred (Additional file 1) without affecting the analysis or the resulting interpretations. Taken together, these techniques enhanced the overall robustness of the results. Results Interviews description A total of 34 interviews were conducted, which lasted between 17 and 52 minutes ( M = 30.1, SD = 8.6). Four interviews took place in person at locations chosen by the participants, while 30 were held online via Zoom. Three interviews served as pilots and were therefore not included in the final analysis. One additional interview was excluded from the analysis as the participant did not return the signed consent form following the online meeting. The final data set for this qualitative study comprised 30 interviews. Sample description On average, participants were 45.3 ( SD = 9.5) years old, and slightly more women (53.3%) than men (46.7%) agreed to participate in the study (Table 2). The sample was highly educated, with all participants holding a PhD, Dr. med., or Dr. med. vet. title and nearly half (46.7%) having completed a habilitation or holding a professorship. Participants had substantial professional experience (years since registration as study director: M = 9.4, SD = 7.5; years of research experience: M = 20.8, SD = 9.8; academic age in years: M = 14.1, SD = 9.3), came mostly from basic and experimental medical research (78.6%), and the majority were employed in academic institutions (90%). There was a slight difference in preregistration experience within the sample, with fewer participants having previously preregistered a study ( n = 14) than those who did not ( n = 16). Among those with preregistration experience, nine participants had preregistered at least one animal study in the classical sense, while the remaining participants had more varied preregistration backgrounds: one had not preregistered a study themselves but supervised a postdoctoral researcher who did (ID 5006); one had experience with both preregistration and registered reports (ID 5016); one had begun preregistering a study but ultimately decided not to proceed (ID 5025); one had preregistered systematic reviews but not animal studies (ID 5029); and one described a voluntary protocol submitted abroad alongside the formal animal experimentation license, which did not constitute preregistration in the classical sense but represented a related variation of it (ID 5013). Given the very small number of animal researchers in Switzerland with preregistration experience, all participants with any form of preregistration-related experience were included in this subgroup. [Insert Table 2 here] Thematic analysis Recurring patterns and themes were identified and organized in relation to the overarching aims of the study, namely participants’ experiences with preregistration, their general views, perceived barriers and facilitators, and suggestions for improvement. Experiences with preregistration (Aim 1) Thematic analysis revealed two main themes regarding participants’ experiences with preregistration: low familiarity with the practice and perceived underuse in the research community (Figure 1). Low familiarity Most participants without prior preregistration experience had never heard of the practice before receiving our study invitation. Some, however, were aware of preregistration in the context of human clinical trials (Figure 1: ID 5017) but had no knowledge of its use in animal research or of existing specialized platforms (Figure 1: ID 5007). In contrast, many participants with preregistration experience were introduced to it through their colleagues, further educations courses, or scientific meetings (Figure 1: ID 5019) and had not encountered any problems with the preregistration process (Figure 1: ID 5003). Perceived underuse Regardless of their own preregistration experience, participants perceived the practice as generally underused within their research field and noted a lack of willingness among researchers to engage in it (Figure 1: ID 5028; ID 5007; ID 5025). General views (Aim 2) Two overarching themes capturing participants’ perceptions and views of preregistration emerged from the thematic analysis: divergent attitudes toward preregistration and misconceptions associated with it (Figure 2). Divergent attitudes Participants described contrasting views of preregistration, depending on their familiarity with the practice. Among researchers with prior preregistration experience, views were predominantly positive, with almost all expressing supportive attitudes and endorsing its broader use (Figure 2: ID 5033; ID 5016), whereas researchers who had never preregistered a study generally expressed skepticism and described more negative attitudes (Figure 2: ID 5010; ID 5014). Within the preregistration subgroup, a few nuances emerged: one participant expressed a more reserved view toward preregistration and asked for more research and proof that preregistration works (Figure 2: ID 5004), while another described preregistration positively in general but was unsure how well it would align with their own research context (Figure 2: ID 5031). Within the subgroup without preregistration experience, attitudes also varied, with a small subset showing openness toward preregistration and even recognizing potential value in the procedure (Figure 2: ID 5030). In addition, regardless of their own preregistration experience, some participants anticipated that more senior researchers would likely oppose this practice, arguing that their expertise and judgment should outweigh the need for formal registrations (Figure 2: ID 5005; ID 5026; ID 5029). Taken together, attitudes toward preregistration were divergent across the sample, with predominantly positive views concentrated among participants with preregistration experience and more skeptical views among those unfamiliar with it. Misconceptions Most participants correctly described what preregistration entails, with only a few providing incomplete or partly inaccurate definitions. However, certain misconceptions emerged among some of the participants without preregistration experience. Several mentioned concerns that preregistration would limit flexibility during a study, fearing that necessary changes would not be possible and that they would be forced to adhere to a protocol that no longer worked or would not be allowed to follow a path that was not part of the preregistration (Figure 2: ID 5014; ID 5017). Others expressed concerns that competitors might scoop their research ideas, particularly larger or better-funded groups that could move more quickly and complete a study before them (Figure 2: ID 5018). Those who had previously preregistered, however, perceived these issues differently and highlighted an opposite view (Figure 2: ID 5026). Barriers (Aim 3) Numerous barriers to preregistration were reported, particularly by participants who had never engaged in this practice. Thematic analysis identified and grouped these barriers into four main categories: practical , structural , compatibility , and epistemic (Figure 3). Practical barriers Practical barriers were mainly linked to workload, time investment, and available resources. Independent of their preregistration experience, the majority of participants complained about the heavy administrative burden associated with conducting animal research in Switzerland (Figure 3: ID 5031). Many, especially those who never preregistered, perceived preregistration as an additional bureaucratic step that requires considerable time to complete (Figure 3: ID 5009). Furthermore, for several participants a major barrier to preregister was their lack of knowledge that such a practice existed (Figure 3: ID 5021). Structural barriers The described structural barriers concerned the regulatory requirements for animal experiments in Switzerland, involving the authorization procedure. A central topic raised, mostly by participants without preregistration experience, was the perceived redundancy of preregistration with the authorization procedure given animex-ch – a governmental web application used to record license applications, reports, and announcements on animal experimentation (Figure 3: ID 5010). Participants also criticized the overregulation of animal research in Switzerland, suggesting that further requirements could reduce the number of studies and weaken international competitiveness (Figure 3: ID 5015; ID 5014). The perceived misalignment between preregistration and industry was also mentioned, as scientists in this sector either conduct internal preregistrations within their companies or refrain from preregistering altogether due to confidentiality agreements (Figure 3: ID 5015). Compatibility barriers Compatibility barriers were centered around some of the most frequently mentioned topics, such as the perceived feasibility of preregistration for certain research designs, as well as its flexibility and adaptability. As previously noted, several participants without preregistration experience raised concerns about the lack of flexibility that preregistration imposes on their methodologies. Many emphasized that preregistration may be unsuitable for exploratory or basic research due to the unpredictable and often iterative nature of such studies, which often leads to deviations from initial plans, making preregistration, in their view, unfeasible (Figure 3: ID 5011; ID 5020). Nevertheless, some participants saw potential for this practice in confirmatory research (Figure 3: ID 5009). Epistemic barriers Participants reported several epistemic barriers to preregistration related to credibility and perceived value. Concerns about intellectual property and idea scooping were the most frequently mentioned among researchers who had never preregistered (Figure 3: ID 5010), with a few also expressing worries about potential harassment by activists. In contrast, those familiar with preregistration held opposite views on these issues (Figure 3: ID 2029). Certain researchers without preregistration experience also expressed little interest in engaging with the practice or regarded it as unnecessary, viewing it as a measure that could restrict innovation. In addition, some participants emphasized that preregistration is not yet a commonly established practice within the animal research community, while others reported limited awareness of the potential benefits and impact (Figure 3: ID 5022). Finally, a small group questioned its value, noting that preregistration records are not checked and no official feedback is provided (Figure 3: ID 5015), with a few even suggesting that the system could be manipulated, as preregistration forms might be falsified. Facilitators (Aim 3) The facilitators to preregistering studies encompassed a range of perceived benefits associated with this practice, which clustered into four main themes: practical , structural , scientific quality , and ethical facilitators (Figure 4). These benefits were reported primarily by participants with prior preregistration experience, although some of the researchers unfamiliar with the practice also recognized its potential. Nevertheless, a small subset without preregistration experience saw no benefit whatsoever in preregistering animal studies and expressed strong opposition to its use. Practical facilitators Several participants described practical facilitators related to workflow, noting that preregistration can support better study planning, improve time and project management, and foster more thorough methods and stronger study designs (Figure 4: ID 5027). In addition, preregistration was perceived to help with drafting papers and accelerating the publication process (Figure 4: ID 5032). In contrast to participants without preregistration experience, who expressed strong fears of idea scooping, those familiar with the practice view preregistration as a way of protecting intellectual property by providing a track record of their research steps (Figure 4: ID 5006). Structural facilitators Structural facilitators referred to systemic and community-level factors that promote preregistration. Some participants mentioned that preregistration could facilitate collaborations and synergies and encourage feedback and scientific exchange (Figure 4: ID 5026). Others outlined its alignment with Open Science initiatives and its role in fostering greater public trust in animal research (Figure 4: ID 5021). Scientific quality facilitators A large number of participants discussed facilitators related to scientific quality, particularly concerning transparency, rigor, and reproducibility. Preregistration was described as a tool to increase transparency in science, prevent publication bias, and reduce parallel research (Figure 4: ID 5025). Several participants emphasized its potential in preventing questionable research practices, such as HARKing, selective reporting, and p-hacking (Figure 4: ID 5023). Furthermore, some mentioned that preregistration could reduce deviations from protocols and minimize researcher bias. Those in favor of the practice believed that preregistration could enhance reproducibility in science and lead to higher overall research quality (Figure 4: ID 5027). Ethical facilitators Ethical facilitators reflected aspects related to animal welfare and scientific integrity. Certain participants reported that preregistration promotes better consideration of animal use in line with the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) and can hence enhance animal welfare (Figure 4: ID 5006; ID 5027). Others noted that preregistration fosters greater accountability by transparently documenting all study steps and reinforcing researchers’ responsibility in animal experimentation (Figure 4: ID 5022). Suggestions for improvement (Aim 4) Participants proposed a wide range of suggestions to improve the preregistration process and increase its uptake. No systematic differences emerged between participants with and without preregistration experience in the types of suggestions they proposed. Following the thematic analysis, the proposed solutions were organized into practical and structural suggestions (Figure 5). Practical suggestions Practical suggestions addressed aspects related to the specific templates and support required to facilitate preregistration and were further divided into two subthemes: tools and resources (Figure 5). Participants emphasized the development of easy-to-use and flexible templates and suggested exploring AI-based tools to assist with preparing preregistrations (Figure 5: ID 5028). Some participants also highlighted the importance of strong confidentiality measures and longer embargo options (Figure 5: ID 5004). Beyond technical support, participants called for additional resources and institutional help, such as dedicated staff, funding, and assistance from animal welfare offices (Figure 5: ID 5014). They further recommended organizing workshops and training courses to increase researchers’ awareness and familiarity with preregistration and sharing clear information on where and how to preregister (Figure 5: ID 5030). Structural suggestions Structural suggestions focused on necessary changes to the current authorization procedure and the existing institutional policies, and were further grouped into three subthemes: infrastructure, policy, and incentives (Figure 5). In terms of infrastructure, several participants proposed linking preregistration with the application for licenses to conduct animal experiments, using the existing platform animex-ch to avoid duplication (Figure 5: ID 5006). Others, however, suggested connecting the government web application to an already established international preregistration platform rather than creating a new Swiss registry. Some participants also proposed making the animex-ch application forms for animal experiment authorizations publicly available (Figure 5: ID 5025) or enabling internal preregistrations through university ethics commissions. Policy-related suggestions included harmonizing guidelines across institutions and promoting international implementation of preregistration beyond Switzerland (Figure 5: ID 5003). Furthermore, most participants favored maintaining preregistration as a voluntary practice, noting that mandatory implementation could trigger very negative reactions within the research community (Figure 5: ID 5023). Some, however, supported a gradual implementation of mandatory preregistration or restricting it to confirmatory research only (Figure 5: ID 5007). Finally, participants emphasized the importance of endorsement from key stakeholders, including institutions, funders, journals, regulatory bodies, and the scientific community. Incentives such as publishing benefits, funding advantages, career rewards, and streamlined authorization processes for preregistered studies were generally preferred over enforcement measures (Figure 5: ID 5016). Many participants also stressed that clearly demonstrating the benefits of preregistration is essential to encourage broader engagement within the research community (Figure 5: ID 5025). Discussion The present study constitutes the qualitative component of a comprehensive mixed-methods project on the present practice and attitudes of animal researchers concerning preregistration of animal experiments in Switzerland. To our knowledge, this is the first study to qualitatively assess animal researchers’ experiences, views, barriers, and facilitators regarding preregistration, as well as to summarize their suggestions for improving its implementation and uptake. Experiences with preregistration The interviews revealed low familiarity with preregistration both among participants and within their research communities. This finding was consistent with results from the survey conducted as part of the quantitative component of the mixed-methods project to which the current study belongs. In the survey, only 10% of respondents had ever preregistered a study, and 39% had never heard of preregistration before participating ( 37 ). Together, these results provide methodological triangulation, confirming low awareness of preregistration in the field, across both qualitative and quantitative datasets. Our results stand in contrast to evidence from psychology, the life and medical sciences, experimental economics, and the social and behavioral sciences, where preregistration is better known and more commonly practiced ( 6 , 17 , 50 – 53 ). This indicates that preregistration remains at an early stage of adoption in animal research, highlighting the need for promoting awareness and uptake in this field. General views We observed divergent views on preregistration depending on participants’ prior experience with it. Those who had previously preregistered generally expressed more positive views, whereas those without such experience tended to be more critical. This pattern was also apparent in the complementary survey study, where preregistration experience emerged as the strongest predictor across all analyzed constructs, being associated with more positive attitudes, norms, intentions, and motivations, and fewer perceived obstacles toward preregistration ( 37 ). In addition, several participants perceived senior researchers as more resistant to the practice, often describing preregistration as something that early-career researchers might be more open to adopting. This pattern that was also mirrored in the quantitative survey study ( 37 ). The agreement between quantitative and qualitative data provides cross-validation of our results, indicating that preregistration experience and seniority level play an important role in shaping researchers’ perceptions of the practice. Future efforts to increase preregistration adoption among animal scientists should be tailored to address the needs and perspectives of these specific subgroups. Barriers and facilitators Our analysis revealed contrasting perceptions among participants regarding the barriers and facilitators to preregistration. With few exceptions, those who had never engaged in preregistration reported numerous barriers, whereas participants with prior experience emphasized a broad range of benefits associated with it. The main barriers concerned the substantial bureaucratic burden already associated with conducting animal research under Switzerland’s regulatory framework and the belief that preregistration would be too time-consuming, further adding to the researchers’ administrative workload. These two barriers were also the most frequently reported by participants in the quantitative study ( 35 ), reflecting consistency of results across methods. In addition, concerns about losing flexibility in conducting research and fears of idea scooping were further barriers highlighted by participants unfamiliar with preregistration. These assumptions reflect misconceptions of the preregistration process. Study plans can be modified as needed through amendments, and deviations transparently reported in publications, while preregistration records can be embargoed until the corresponding papers are published. Consistent with this, the quantitative study showed that fears of scooping ranked among the top five concerns among researchers who had never preregistered but did not appear among the top five actual problems encountered by those with preregistration experience ( 37 ). In line with these concerns, another major barrier was the perceived incompatibility of preregistration with exploratory and basic research. Researchers whose work involves greater methodological flexibility appeared more skeptical of preregistration than those conducting studies in which procedures, tests, and methods can be defined a priori. Nevertheless, participants acknowledged the potential of preregistration for hypothesis testing and other forms of confirmatory research. Taken together, these findings indicate that perceived barriers to preregistration stem from practical challenges and conceptual misunderstandings of the process, as well as structural and methodological constraints specific to animal research. Addressing these misconceptions through education and reducing administrative hurdles may therefore be essential to improving acceptance and uptake of preregistration within the animal research community. Several facilitators of preregistration were also reported, primarily by participants with prior experience of using it. Preregistration was perceived as a tool offering practical and structural benefits, including improved study planning, stronger study methodology, and more efficient project management, as well as fostering collaboration, alignment with Open Science initiatives, and greater public trust in animal research. In addition, preregistration was associated with perceived scientific and ethical advantages, such as increased transparency, reduced questionable research practices, and greater accountability leading to better adherence to the 3Rs principles and more responsible animal use. Collectively, these findings suggest that researchers who have experience with preregistration view it as having the potential to enhance research quality and integrity, as well as to strengthen the ethical standards and the external trust in animal research. Suggestions for improvement Several suggestions for improving the practice and uptake of preregistration were proposed by participants with both favorable and critical views of the practice. Participants emphasized the need to raise awareness and to provide training on the process and practical steps of preregistration, along with efforts to demonstrate its scientific benefits. Recommendations for simplifying procedures and linking preregistration to the authorization procedure for animal experiments were also made, with the aim of reducing administrative burden and streamlining the process. Importantly, the majority of participants stressed that preregistration should remain voluntary, with a focus on introducing incentives rather than enforcing mandatory participation. They noted that the research community may otherwise respond negatively, as many scientists are not yet sufficiently informed or convinced about the practice and would require additional guidance and support. Strengths and limitations The central strength of the current study lies in its qualitative design, which enabled an in-depth exploration of researchers’ perspectives and provided contextual nuanced and insight into how preregistration is experienced and understood in practice. Furthermore, the study was embedded within a larger mixed-methods project and complemented by a quantitative survey, allowing for methodological triangulation that cross-validated the findings and strengthened the overall conclusions. Nonetheless, given the qualitative design used, several limitations should be considered. First, the sample may have been subject to selection bias, as participation was voluntary and may have attracted researchers with particularly strong opinions on preregistration. Nevertheless, extensive efforts were made to achieve hierarchical stratification by including animal researchers with varying levels of preregistration experience, gender, linguistic region, and seniority. This diverse sample enabled us to capture a wide range of perspectives and experiences, identify unique challenges faced by subgroups within our participant pool, and enhance the transferability and robustness of our findings. Second, researcher bias may have influenced data collection, as the interviewer had prior experience with preregistration and was generally supportive of the practice. To minimize this bias, peer debriefing was employed. The interviewer (CP) engaged in regular discussions with a second researcher (SL), who led the transcription process and did not have prior preregistration experience, as well as with the study supervisor (HW), to critically reflect on potential preconceptions and ensure transparency. Third, interpretation bias might have influenced the analysis, as qualitative approaches involve a certain degree of subjectivity. To address this issue, investigator triangulation was implemented. The interviewer (CP) and a further researcher (GS), who lacked preregistration experience, independently coded the interview transcripts and conducted the thematic analysis to reduce subjective interpretation and enhance the credibility of the findings. Conclusion Preregistration remains largely uncommon and underused within animal research. While researchers with previous preregistration experience tend to recognize its value, those who have not yet engaged in it remain hesitant and often unconvinced of its benefits. Increasing awareness, addressing misconceptions, and providing targeted training and institutional support appear to be crucial for its wider adoption. In addition, simplifying procedures and linking preregistration to the existing authorization procedure may help reduce administrative barriers and encourage broader engagement. Nevertheless, our findings show that preregistration should remain voluntary and incentive-based to ensure acceptance and avoid opposition from the research community. Abbreviations FSVO – Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office Declarations Author Contribution C.P.: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, software, validation, visualization, writing – original draft, writing – reviewing and editing. S.L.: data curation, writing – original draft, writing – reviewing and editing. G.S.: data curation, formal analysis, validation.E.V.: conceptualization, methodology, writing – reviewing and editing.B.E.: conceptualization, methodology, writing – reviewing and editing.H.W.: conceptualization, funding acquisition, methodology, resources, supervision, writing – reviewing and editing. Acknowledgement We would like to acknowledge and thank Dr. Annamari Alitalo and Dr. med. vet. Otto Maissen for identifying the eligible study directors and carrying out the recruitment process for this study, as well as for their professional conduct and excellent communication throughout the administration of this research. This work was conducted as part of SIRRO (Strengthen the Interoperability and Reusability of Research Outputs), a project supported by swissuniversities. We are also grateful to all participants for taking the time to contribute to our study. Data Availability Anonymized transcripts from participants who consented to their publication are available in the University of Bern data repository BORIS at the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.48620/92462 References Baker M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature Publishing Group UK London; 2016. Wiggins BJ, Christopherson CD. The replication crisis in psychology: An overview for theoretical and philosophical psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. 2019;39(4):202. Peels R. Replicability and replication in the humanities. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2019;4(1):2. Hanin L. Why statistical inference from clinical trials is likely to generate false and irreproducible results. BMC medical research methodology. 2017;17(1):127. Ferguson J, Littman R, Christensen G, Paluck EL, Swanson N, Wang Z, et al. Survey of open science practices and attitudes in the social sciences. Nature Communications. 2023;14(1):5401. Pfadt JM, Bartoš F, Godmann HR, Waaijers M, Groot L, Heo I, et al. A Methodological Metamorphosis: The Rapid Rise of Bayesian Inference and Open Science Practices in Psychology. 2025. Heinl C, Scholman-Végh AM, Mellor D, Schönfelder G, Strech D, Chamuleau S, Bert B. Declaration of common standards for the preregistration of animal research—speeding up the scientific progress. PNAS nexus. 2022;1(1):pgac016. Strømland E. Preregistration and reproducibility. Journal of Economic Psychology. 2019;75:102143. Bert B, Heinl C, Chmielewska J, Schwarz F, Grune B, Hensel A, et al. Refining animal research: the animal study registry. PLoS biology. 2019;17(10):e3000463. Nosek BA, Beck ED, Campbell L, Flake JK, Hardwicke TE, Mellor DT, et al. Preregistration is hard, and worthwhile. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2019;23(10):815-8. Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, Mellor DT. The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018;115(11):2600-6. Menon JM, van der Naald M, Chamuleau SA, Duncker DJ. Preclinicaltrials. eu: prospective registration of animal studies. Oxford University Press US; 2023. Hardwicke TE, Wagenmakers E-J. Reducing bias, increasing transparency and calibrating confidence with preregistration. Nature Human Behaviour. 2023;7(1):15-26. Kerr NL. HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and social psychology review. 1998;2(3):196-217. Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DV, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie du Sert N, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature human behaviour. 2017;1(1):1-9. van den Akker OR, van Assen MA, Bakker M, Elsherif M, Wong TK, Wicherts JM. Preregistration in practice: A comparison of preregistered and non-preregistered studies in psychology. Behavior Research Methods. 2023:1-10. Logg JM, Dorison CA. Pre-registration: Weighing costs and benefits for researchers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2021;167:18-27. Wagenmakers E-J, Wetzels R, Borsboom D, van der Maas HL, Kievit RA. An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on psychological science. 2012;7(6):632-8. Toth AA, Banks GC, Mellor D, O’Boyle EH, Dickson A, Davis DJ, et al. Study preregistration: An evaluation of a method for transparent reporting. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2021;36:553-71. Scheel AM, Schijen MR, Lakens D. An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard psychology literature with registered reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 2021;4(2):25152459211007467. Soderberg CK, Errington TM, Schiavone SR, Bottesini J, Thorn FS, Vazire S, et al. Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model. Nature Human Behaviour. 2021;5(8):990-7. Dechartres A, Ravaud P, Atal I, Riveros C, Boutron I. Association between trial registration and treatment effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study. BMC medicine. 2016;14:1-9. Emdin C, Odutayo A, Hsiao A, Shakir M, Hopewell S, Rahimi K, Altman DG. Association of cardiovascular trial registration with positive study findings: Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials (ESORT). JAMA internal medicine. 2015;175(2):304-7. Odutayo A, Emdin CA, Hsiao AJ, Shakir M, Copsey B, Dutton S, et al. Association between trial registration and positive study findings: cross sectional study (Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials—ESORT). bmj. 2017;356. Schäfer T, Schwarz MA. The meaningfulness of effect sizes in psychological research: Differences between sub-disciplines and the impact of potential biases. Frontiers in psychology. 2019;10:442717. França TF, Monserrat JM. Reproducibility crisis in science or unrealistic expectations? EMBO reports. 2018;19(6):e46008. Schulz JB, Cookson MR, Hausmann L. The impact of fraudulent and irreproducible data to the translational research crisis–solutions and implementation. Journal of Neurochemistry. 2016;139:253-70. Anvari F, Lakens D. The replicability crisis and public trust in psychological science. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology. 2018;3(3):266-86. Arrowsmith J, Miller P. Phase II and Phase III attrition rates 2011-2012. Nature reviews Drug discovery. 2013;12(8):569-70. Begley CG, Ellis LM. Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483(7391):531-3. Schmidt‐Pogoda A, Bonberg N, Koecke MHM, Strecker JK, Wellmann J, Bruckmann NM, et al. Why most acute stroke studies are positive in animals but not in patients: a systematic comparison of preclinical, early phase, and phase 3 clinical trials of neuroprotective agents. Annals of neurology. 2020;87(1):40-51. Jarvis MF, Williams M. Irreproducibility in preclinical biomedical research: perceptions, uncertainties, and knowledge gaps. Trends in pharmacological sciences. 2016;37(4):290-302. Kimmelman J, Anderson JA. Should preclinical studies be registered? Nature biotechnology. 2012;30(6):488-9. Voelkl B, Altman NS, Forsman A, Forstmeier W, Gurevitch J, Jaric I, et al. Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2020;21(7):384-93. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature reviews Drug discovery. 2011;10(9):712-. Wieschowski S, Silva DS, Strech D. Animal study registries: results from a stakeholder analysis on potential strengths, weaknesses, facilitators, and barriers. PLoS biology. 2016;14(11):e2000391. Priboi C, Mayer B, Vergauwe E, Elger BS, Würbel H. Researchers' perspectives on preregistration in animal research. bioRxiv. 2025:2025.11.07.687141. Wold B, Tabak L. ACD working group on enhancing rigor, transparency, and translatability in animal research: final report. Bethesda (MD): NIH Advisory Committee to the Director. 2021. Jeffers MS, MacLellan A, Avey MT, Menon JM, Sunohara-Neilson J, Fergusson DA, Lalu MM. A call to implement preclinical study registration in animal ethics review. Plos Biology. 2023;21(10):e3002293. Priboi C, Zellers S, Scheel A, Würbel H, Wever K. Evaluating the impact of preregistration and registered reports on replicability, reproducibility, and publication success of research studies: A systematic review. Preregistration on Open Science Framework. 2024 https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PG3NY. Willroth EC, Atherton OE. Best laid plans: A guide to reporting preregistration deviations. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 2024;7(1):25152459231213802. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Academic medicine. 2014;89(9):1245-51. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology. 2006;3(2):77-101. Braun V, Clarke V. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57-71). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2012. Braun V, Clarke V, Hayfield N, Terry G. Thematic analysis. Handbook of research methods in health social sciences: Springer; 2019. p. 843-60. Rehman AA, Alharthi K. An introduction to research paradigms. International journal of educational investigations. 2016;3(8):51-9. Pervin N, Mokhtar M. The interpretivist research paradigm: A subjective notion of a social context. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development. 2022;11(2):419-28. Ahmed SK. Sample size for saturation in qualitative research: Debates, definitions, and strategies. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health. 2025;5:100171. Rädiker S, Kuckartz U. Focused analysis of qualitative interviews with MAXQDA. MaxQDA Press. 2020. Spitzer L, Mueller S. Registered report: Survey on attitudes and experiences regarding preregistration in psychological research. Plos one. 2023;18(3):e0281086. Gopalakrishna G, Wicherts JM, Vink G, Stoop I, van den Akker OR, Ter Riet G, Bouter LM. Prevalence of responsible research practices among academics in The Netherlands. F1000Research. 2022;11:471. Imai T, Toussaert S, Baillon A, Dreber A, Ertaç S, Johannesson M, et al. Pre-Registration and Pre-Analysis Plans in Experimental Economics. I4R Discussion Paper Series; 2025. Christensen G, Wang Z, Levy Paluck E, Swanson N, Birke D, Miguel E, Littman R. Open science practices are on the rise: The state of social science (3S) survey. 2020. Tables Table 1 and 2 are available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Supplementarymaterial.zip Table1and2.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8194213","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":553437607,"identity":"e268495a-1b27-4aca-8aa6-2d62f3055de6","order_by":0,"name":"Cristina Priboi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Bern","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Cristina","middleName":"","lastName":"Priboi","suffix":""},{"id":553437608,"identity":"3eb7717a-7d4d-4d5a-a561-42292192a52c","order_by":1,"name":"Simone Lalor","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Bern","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Simone","middleName":"","lastName":"Lalor","suffix":""},{"id":553437609,"identity":"19c0a71c-e5c9-4888-875a-005108bc4414","order_by":2,"name":"Giorgia Sarra","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Bern","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Giorgia","middleName":"","lastName":"Sarra","suffix":""},{"id":553437610,"identity":"29a45205-1ad4-4e51-9000-63cd7b6f15f0","order_by":3,"name":"Evie Vergauwe","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Geneva","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Evie","middleName":"","lastName":"Vergauwe","suffix":""},{"id":553437611,"identity":"0773013d-050e-4f03-932a-93d0f87c1007","order_by":4,"name":"Bernice Elger","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Basel","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Bernice","middleName":"","lastName":"Elger","suffix":""},{"id":553437612,"identity":"bcd8c42b-f0a1-4e8a-b9cc-94190c3404cf","order_by":5,"name":"Hanno Würbel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Bern","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hanno","middleName":"","lastName":"Würbel","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-11-24 13:53:40","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8194213/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8194213/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":97666470,"identity":"4207e553-967d-4cf2-b300-bf30a7fe53d9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:21:17","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":208913,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Studypreregistration.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/51e446f304bf4c089d2c2208.docx"},{"id":97665328,"identity":"bf6731ce-796c-40dc-9442-8af5c1b1b48f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:17:51","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":9525,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"45832ad66ac0421e87d3d646ea65c4eb.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/e20d6aef8dfe2fa8a6847c27.json"},{"id":97395207,"identity":"5224cc4c-f6af-48f8-81c8-17e1e3b4645e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 00:08:47","extension":"zip","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":309073,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementarymaterial.zip","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/89be49281524f6e1d250347b.zip"},{"id":97666018,"identity":"8f1ee479-4c9c-45e1-8474-18845d673fec","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:20:19","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":146745,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"45832ad66ac0421e87d3d646ea65c4eb1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/f999498b2cf94e53116b7a8e.xml"},{"id":97665038,"identity":"8684f10c-e8fc-4f59-bcdb-8f26a689c37d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:16:02","extension":"eps","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":409190,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"drawingimage1.eps","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/e15740eee38c533d72d1949a.eps"},{"id":97395211,"identity":"0430f316-d880-4005-8e4c-6a96970fe532","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 00:08:47","extension":"eps","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":131237,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"drawingimage3.eps","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/e3889498f7800892ebebca5d.eps"},{"id":97665237,"identity":"e941d334-305d-4cea-be28-83d5532adfd1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:17:32","extension":"eps","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":131237,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"drawingimage5.eps","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/9fcc7468550faf71df380cc7.eps"},{"id":97665736,"identity":"1bd93f73-0aca-4b52-9935-62b475fb191a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:19:30","extension":"jpeg","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1741352,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/3adc545f7619f08dbdbc7b3b.jpeg"},{"id":97395220,"identity":"4362fd99-2a05-48e0-b392-52dacdcaae62","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 00:08:47","extension":"jpeg","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3006974,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/03157928bbcaf1c8d6bd868e.jpeg"},{"id":97395215,"identity":"24a461ca-6ec3-4108-a981-98f035e66930","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 00:08:47","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":249419,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/92a4048342b0daa15649c5c1.png"},{"id":97395216,"identity":"52f93461-611a-4091-9c7e-2a938643c7cf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 00:08:47","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":374538,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/6a54faedc27502a54ff099a0.png"},{"id":97666530,"identity":"ac6f6bef-5dcd-408a-8a9a-181c859fe36f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:21:28","extension":"xml","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":141945,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"45832ad66ac0421e87d3d646ea65c4eb1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/c7c5e7db5f835afd14bd9d7a.xml"},{"id":97395218,"identity":"141c7169-74d9-41f5-acac-1401c1a7fe47","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 00:08:47","extension":"html","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":160188,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/affbaa8dd6e58205ddcfe52f.html"},{"id":97395202,"identity":"fde627bf-5b90-42fe-891a-9097e0261cc3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 00:08:46","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":176539,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExperiences with preregistration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. \u003c/em\u003eParticipant IDs shown in purple indicate researchers with preregistration experience, while IDs shown in blue indicate those who had not preregistered any study prior to the interview.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/a5fdfcb35c4e1beadfa36295.png"},{"id":97665265,"identity":"4cce9d24-dfbb-417c-a6cb-9c2ba8b1f5d0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:17:38","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":289950,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral views of preregistration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. \u003c/em\u003eParticipant IDs shown in purple indicate researchers with preregistration experience, while IDs shown in blue indicate those who had not preregistered any study prior to the interview.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/938ab9067ecd43c39d793927.png"},{"id":97395208,"identity":"d386ee78-7cf3-4c3e-aa73-1af03b618d03","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 00:08:47","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":286825,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBarriers to preregistration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. \u003c/em\u003eParticipant IDs shown in purple indicate researchers with preregistration experience, while IDs shown in blue indicate those who had not preregistered any study prior to the interview.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/7682ef3e281b7cf2982d56a5.png"},{"id":97665465,"identity":"ecd56777-90fe-4948-adab-a15cbe80f1d3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:18:35","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":271486,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFacilitators to preregistration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. \u003c/em\u003eParticipant IDs shown in purple indicate researchers with preregistration experience, while IDs shown in blue indicate those who had not preregistered any study prior to the interview.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/e56217404beaf8115327c4ee.png"},{"id":97665976,"identity":"a7d76a97-30a4-46ee-92b2-76bb7d496250","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:20:11","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":232289,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSuggestions for improvement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. \u003c/em\u003eParticipant IDs shown in purple indicate researchers with preregistration experience, while IDs shown in blue indicate those who had not preregistered any study prior to the interview.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/ed64565aed11085c8a62e465.png"},{"id":102746911,"identity":"221727fb-45df-42a1-966c-63e40dd9ca51","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-16 09:02:58","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1648260,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/1097c328-9f35-4613-90b8-b4e4be7abf04.pdf"},{"id":97395203,"identity":"90a44ad8-49d2-413c-a9f5-abebcb26b175","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 00:08:47","extension":"zip","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":309073,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementarymaterial.zip","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/88927e4fa5d47e142e86ff24.zip"},{"id":97395200,"identity":"a98e273c-e095-4218-bca8-bdc61369ed51","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 00:08:46","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":21198,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table1and2.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8194213/v1/bc5b8ee622cbaf8807948664.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Preregistration in Animal Experimentation – A Qualitative Study on Researchers’ Views in Switzerland","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eThere has been a noticeable transition in recent years to open science practices within the scientific community, with the intention to strengthen scientific rigor and improve the replicability and reproducibility of research. This shift is partly driven by the so-called \u0026ldquo;replication crisis\u0026rdquo; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), which has shed light on sources of poor reproducibility of research findings, spanning from the humanities (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) to biomedical research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Although it is widely recognized that rigor in the design, conduct and reporting of research needs to improve, adoption of open science practices remains uneven across fields of research, with social sciences leading the way (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e) and biomedical research slower in uptake (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). One of the most promising and transformative open science practices is preregistration (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). Defined as the registration of a study\u0026rsquo;s hypotheses, methods, and planned analyses in open repositories prior to collecting data or conducting data analysis (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR10 CR11\" citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e), preregistration has been reported to help reduce questionable research practices, such as \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-hacking, selective reporting, and HARKing (\u0026ldquo;hypothesizing after the results are known\u0026rdquo;) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR14 CR15\" citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e), as well as reducing publication bias and facilitating the distinction between planned and unplanned (exploratory) analyses, thereby improving scientific rigor (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e). There is growing empirical evidence on the impact of preregistration, indicating that preregistered studies yield fewer significant results and smaller effect sizes than non-preregistered studies, as well as larger sample sizes, better reporting, and higher methodological quality (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR20 CR21 CR22 CR23 CR24\" citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e). Taken together, these advantages highlight the potential of preregistration in minimizing practices that compromise research integrity by increasing transparency and thereby improving reproducibility in science.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe consequences of irreproducible research outcomes are far-reaching, as it undermines scientific credibility (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e), raises ethical concerns (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e), and erodes public trust (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e). Low rates of translation from preclinical to clinical research and poor reproducibility in animal research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR30 CR31\" citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e) have also raised concerns about irresponsible use of animals in research and potential risks to which patients in clinical trials are exposed (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR34\" citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e). Preregistration could therefore serve as a valuable tool to improve the rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of animal research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite the many positive effects of preregistration and the existence of various registries, including two specifically for animal research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e), adoption of preregistration has remained low in animal research both in Switzerland (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e) and internationally (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). Steps towards promoting preregistration have already been taken, with several journals requiring it as part of their publications policies (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, a report by a U.S. National Institutes of Health working group recommended preregistration for animal studies (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e), and a recent call advocated for its implementation in preclinical research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e). However, better uptake may depend on overcoming barriers and promoting incentives but presently there is little information on potential barriers and facilitators of preregistration. Improving our understanding of animal researchers\u0026rsquo; concerns regarding preregistration could help develop better strategies for increasing the adoption of preregistration in animal research. For this purpose, the current study aimed to:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eObtain in-depth information on the experiences of animal researchers with study preregistration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eExplore the views of animal researchers on study preregistration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eIdentify barriers and facilitators of study preregistration as perceived by animal researchers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eCollect animal researchers\u0026rsquo; suggestions for improving the preregistration process and increasing its uptake.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study used a sample of study directors of animal experiments in Switzerland as a study population. Although some aspects may be specific to Switzerland, the findings of this study should provide valuable insights into the applicability of preregistration in animal research and may help inform policy decisions and infrastructure development.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study is part of a larger cross-sectional mixed-methods project including three components: the current qualitative interview study, a quantitative survey study (37), and a systematic literature review (40). The qualitative interview study was preregistered on the Open Science Framework platform on August 20, 2024 (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KGV6R). A minimal deviation from the preregistered plan was made and is listed in the Additional file 1. This deviation is described following the guideline of Willroth and Atherton (41), and the current paper is reported in accordance with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) guidelines (42).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eQualitative approach and research paradigm\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was based on a qualitative design and thematic analysis guided data interpretation. This flexible analytical framework is often used to identify recurring patterns in qualitative data through systematic coding of the interviews, leading to the organization and identification of key themes emerging from participants\u0026apos; narratives (43-45). Furthermore, the study was framed within an interpretivist research paradigm, which assumes that multiple socially constructed realities coexist and enables researchers to develop a contextualized interpretation of the studied phenomena (46, 47). This paradigm was selected to explore participants lived experiences and perceptions of preregistration, emphasizing their subjective understanding rather than the objective measurement of these outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eResearcher characteristics and reflexivity\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll interviews were conducted by a female postdoctoral researcher (CP) with training and experience in qualitative data collection. The interviewer had a background in psychology and experience with preregistration practices but did not have expertise in animal experimentation in Switzerland. To ensure an accurate understanding of the context, she familiarized herself with the Swiss legal framework and procedures for animal research and held regular meetings with the study supervisor (HW) to minimize bias and avoid potential misconceptions. The interviewer had no prior relationship or contact with participants before the interviews, except for three researchers she had briefly met in an academic context.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eContext\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in Switzerland where animal research is regulated by the Animal Welfare Act, the Animal Welfare Ordinance, and the Animal Experimentation Ordinance. The Swiss legislation is among the most stringent in the world and seeks to guarantee compliance with good research practice and implementation of the 3R principles (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement). Study directors are legally responsible to ensure that animal experiments are conducted in accordance with the national and cantonal legislation. To be eligible for the role of study director, researchers need a biomedical university degree, a minimum of three years of experience in animal research, and the completion of a certified further education course in laboratory animal science. Participants in this study were drawn from the population of licensed study directors in Switzerland.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eSample strategy\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTargeted study sample\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough previous research suggests that thematic saturation is typically achieved with around 15 to 20 interviews (48), a slightly higher number of 32 participants was targeted to capture diversity in preregistration experience, gender, language, and seniority level (Additional file 2). This targeted sample was designed using a hierarchical stratification approach, aiming to include two equally sized subgroups of 16 researchers each \u0026ndash; one with and one without prior preregistration experience. The increased number of participants also allowed thematic saturation to be reached within the two subgroups. Furthermore, each subgroup was structured to ensure balanced representation across gender (8 females and 8 males), language region (4 German-speaking and 4 French-speaking within each gender), and seniority (2 early-career and 2 senior researchers within each language group). Language region was classified based on the location of the participants\u0026rsquo; institutional affiliation, while seniority was determined by a combination of research experience, leadership responsibilities, and institutional status. Participants holding a professorship or group leadership role were categorized as senior researchers, whereas all others were classified as early-career researchers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eRecruitment strategy\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs this study was embedded in a larger mixed-methods project, participants for the interviews were recruited via an item in the online questionnaire used in the quantitative component, administered between May and June 2024 (37). Interested individuals, or those referring to other animal researchers, were redirected from the survey to a separate page to provide contact information. Their details were stored independently of the survey responses to ensure confidentiality. A total of 38 contacts were collected, of which 37 individuals volunteered for the interview and one animal researcher was suggested as interested. Potential participants were then classified according to their preregistration experience, gender, language, and seniority level. Information on gender, language, and seniority level was extracted from institutional websites, while preregistration experience was assessed when participants provided contact information through the questionnaire (Additional file 3). After the classification, they were randomly selected and invited to participate in the study. Given that only two animal researchers had preregistration experience, snowball and purposive sampling were additionally employed to expand the sample. First, interview participants were invited to name potential participants with preregistration experience. In total, 15 additional researchers were suggested. Second, two registries for animal studies \u0026ndash; \u003cem\u003eanimalstudyregistry.org\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003epreclinicaltrials.eu\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; were searched to identify researchers affiliated with Swiss institutions who had preregistration experience. This search yielded four further potential participants. Finally, on October 3, 2024, a follow-up invitation email was sent to participants who had completed the online questionnaire. The message invited researchers with prior preregistration experience to take part in the qualitative study and to share their contact information via a link included in the email. A total of 20 new individuals were identified. All researchers found through these additional recruitment steps were contacted and invited to participate in the qualitative study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFinal study sample\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the subgroup of researchers without preregistration experience, recruitment proceeded as planned, and the targeted hierarchical stratification was achieved without difficulties. In contrast, for the subgroup with preregistration experience, the final sample did not fully match the targeted stratification. As shown by the quantitative component of the mixed-methods project (37), only 10% (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 42) of animal researchers in Switzerland had prior preregistration experience. Given that the population of animal researchers with preregistration experience was very small, it was not feasible to recruit participants who met all predefined strata. Consequently, we encountered considerable difficulty in meeting the stratification requirements envisioned for the subgroup with preregistration experience. While the differences in gender distribution and seniority were minor, larger discrepancies occurred in language region, with almost no preregistration-experienced researchers from the French-speaking part of Switzerland. These differences reflect feasibility constraints in the available population rather than changes to, or deviations from, the preregistered sampling plan. Nevertheless, the missing strata representation was considered acceptable in order to ensure a sufficient number of participants (Additional file 4).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eEthical issues pertaining to human subjects\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study received ethical approval from the Ethical Commission of the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Bern, Switzerland (Nr. 2024-03-06). All participants were informed about the scope of the study, the parties involved, and the funding source. Written informed consent was signed by all included participants. For the in-person interviews, participants signed the informed consent prior to the interview. For the online interviews, verbal consent was received before the recording began, and participants were instructed to email the signed consent form to the study team following the interview. Data were stored on a secured server at the University of Bern, accessible only to authorized study personnel. The interview recordings were deleted after the publication of the current article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData collection methods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were contacted by email to arrange interview appointments. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted either in person or via Zoom, according to participants\u0026rsquo; preferences. Pilot interviews took place between 08.05.2024 and 03.07.2024, while study interviews were held between 04.09.2024 and 10.01.2025. To ensure a consistent understanding of the topic, the definition of preregistration was provided before the interview began (Additional file 5). All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim by one researcher (SL), while a second researcher (CP) reviewed the transcripts for accuracy. Personal information was anonymized during transcription to protect participants\u0026rsquo; confidentiality.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData collection instruments and technologies\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA semi-structured interview guide was developed based on the study objectives and the available literature. The guide was revised in several rounds by the study team and piloted in three interviews that were not included in the final sample. These steps allowed the refinement of the open-ended questions and improved the flow and clarity of the interview structure. Two finalized versions of the guide were used with the study sample, depending on participants\u0026rsquo; previous experience with preregistration (Table 1). In addition, a brief questionnaire collecting sociodemographic information was administered, including age, gender, years registered as study director, years of animal research experience, academic age, educational attainment, seniority level, field of animal research, and organizational affiliation. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e[Insert Table 1 here]\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eUnits of study\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study units consisted of individual animal researchers who served as study directors and held an active license for animal experimentation either at the time of data collection or in the past, as well as individuals with professional experience in animal research who did not hold such a license.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData processing\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA was used to assist with the thematic analysis of the interviews (49). This software facilitates the management of qualitative datasets by supporting the systematic application of codes and allowing the exploration and analysis of coded material.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc208842195\"\u003eFollowing transcription, systematic coding of the data was conducted to identify recurring patterns and themes emerging from participants\u0026apos; narratives. Codes were generated through an iterative process of careful and repeated reading of the transcripts, allowing themes to be inductively derived from the data. Thematic analysis was performed in parallel by two independent coders (CP, GS). To ensure the reliability and validity of the analysis, the coders engaged in regular meetings to discuss and resolve discrepancies in code generation and interpretation until consensus was reached. Analysis continued until no additional themes emerged from the data, suggesting thematic saturation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eTechniques to enhance trustworthiness\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInvestigator and data triangulation were implemented to ensure the trustworthiness of the analysis. Data triangulation was established by including participants with diverse preregistration experience, gender, linguistic region, and seniority in the study sample, enabling the comparison of perspectives across these subgroups. Investigator triangulation was achieved by involving three researchers \u0026ndash; one with preregistration experience (CP) and two without (SL, GS) \u0026ndash; who independently reviewed the transcripts, coded the data, and conducted the thematic analysis, thereby ensuring reliability. Furthermore, the study was preregistered prior to data collection, which enhanced transparency and methodological rigor. A single minimal deviation from the preregistered plan occurred (Additional file 1) without affecting the analysis or the resulting interpretations. Taken together, these techniques enhanced the overall robustness of the results.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003ch2\u003eInterviews description\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA total of 34 interviews were conducted, which lasted between 17 and 52 minutes (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 30.1, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 8.6). Four interviews took place in person at locations chosen by the participants, while 30 were held online via Zoom. Three interviews served as pilots and were therefore not included in the final analysis. One additional interview was excluded from the analysis as the participant did not return the signed consent form following the online meeting. The final data set for this qualitative study comprised 30 interviews. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eSample description\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn average, participants were 45.3 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 9.5) years old, and slightly more women (53.3%) than men (46.7%) agreed to participate in the study (Table 2). The sample was highly educated, with all participants holding a PhD, Dr. med., or Dr. med. vet. title and nearly half (46.7%) having completed a habilitation or holding a professorship. Participants had substantial professional experience (years since registration as study director: \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 9.4, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 7.5; years of research experience: \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 20.8, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 9.8; academic age in years: \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 14.1, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 9.3), came mostly from basic and experimental medical research (78.6%), and the majority were employed in academic institutions (90%). There was a slight difference in preregistration experience within the sample, with fewer participants having previously preregistered a study (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 14) than those who did not (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 16). Among those with preregistration experience, nine participants had preregistered at least one animal study in the classical sense, while the remaining participants had more varied preregistration backgrounds: one had not preregistered a study themselves but supervised a postdoctoral researcher who did (ID 5006); one had experience with both preregistration and registered reports (ID 5016); one had begun preregistering a study but ultimately decided not to proceed (ID 5025); one had preregistered systematic reviews but not animal studies (ID 5029); and one described a voluntary protocol submitted abroad alongside the formal animal experimentation license, which did not constitute preregistration in the classical sense but represented a related variation of it (ID 5013). Given the very small number of animal researchers in Switzerland with preregistration experience, all participants with any form of preregistration-related experience were included in this subgroup.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e[Insert Table 2 here]\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eThematic analysis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecurring patterns and themes were identified and organized in relation to the overarching aims of the study, namely participants\u0026rsquo; experiences with preregistration, their general views, perceived barriers and facilitators, and suggestions for improvement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cspan id=\"_Toc208842200\"\u003eExperiences with preregistration (Aim 1)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThematic analysis revealed two main themes regarding participants\u0026rsquo; experiences with preregistration: \u003cem\u003elow familiarity\u003c/em\u003e with the practice and \u003cem\u003eperceived underuse\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ein the research community (Figure 1).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLow familiarity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost participants without prior preregistration experience had never heard of the practice before receiving our study invitation. Some, however, were aware of preregistration in the context of human clinical trials (Figure 1: ID 5017) but had no knowledge of its use in animal research or of existing specialized platforms (Figure 1: ID 5007). In contrast, many participants with preregistration experience were introduced to it through their colleagues, further educations courses, or scientific meetings (Figure 1: ID 5019) and had not encountered any problems with the preregistration process (Figure 1: ID 5003).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerceived underuse\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan id=\"_Toc208842202\"\u003eRegardless of their own preregistration experience, participants perceived the practice as generally underused within their research field and noted a lack of willingness among researchers to engage in it (Figure 1: ID 5028; ID 5007; ID 5025).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cspan id=\"_Toc208842201\"\u003eGeneral views (Aim 2)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwo overarching themes capturing participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions and views of preregistration emerged from the thematic analysis: \u003cem\u003edivergent attitudes\u003c/em\u003e toward preregistration and \u003cem\u003emisconceptions\u003c/em\u003e associated with it (Figure 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDivergent attitudes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants described contrasting views of preregistration, depending on their familiarity with the practice. Among researchers with prior preregistration experience, views were predominantly positive, with almost all expressing supportive attitudes and endorsing its broader use (Figure 2: ID 5033; ID 5016), whereas researchers who had never preregistered a study generally expressed skepticism and described more negative attitudes (Figure 2: ID 5010; ID 5014). Within the preregistration subgroup, a few nuances emerged: one participant expressed a more reserved view toward preregistration and asked for more research and proof that preregistration works (Figure 2: ID 5004), while another described preregistration positively in general but was unsure how well it would align with their own research context (Figure 2: ID 5031). Within the subgroup without preregistration experience, attitudes also varied, with a small subset showing openness toward preregistration and even recognizing potential value in the procedure (Figure 2: ID 5030). In addition, regardless of their own preregistration experience, some participants anticipated that more senior researchers would likely oppose this practice, arguing that their expertise and judgment should outweigh the need for formal registrations (Figure 2: ID 5005; ID 5026; ID 5029). Taken together, attitudes toward preregistration were divergent across the sample, with predominantly positive views concentrated among participants with preregistration experience and more skeptical views among those unfamiliar with it.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMisconceptions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost participants correctly described what preregistration entails, with only a few providing incomplete or partly inaccurate definitions. However, certain misconceptions emerged among some of the participants without preregistration experience. Several mentioned concerns that preregistration would limit flexibility during a study, fearing that necessary changes would not be possible and that they would be forced to adhere to a protocol that no longer worked or would not be allowed to follow a path that was not part of the preregistration (Figure 2: ID 5014; ID 5017). Others expressed concerns that competitors might scoop their research ideas, particularly larger or better-funded groups that could move more quickly and complete a study before them (Figure 2: ID 5018). Those who had previously preregistered, however, perceived these issues differently and highlighted an opposite view (Figure 2: ID 5026).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eBarriers (Aim 3)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNumerous barriers to preregistration were reported, particularly by participants who had never engaged in this practice. Thematic analysis identified and grouped these barriers into four main categories: \u003cem\u003epractical\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003estructural\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ecompatibility\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eepistemic\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Figure 3).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePractical barriers\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePractical barriers were mainly linked to workload, time investment, and available resources. Independent of their preregistration experience, the majority of participants complained about the heavy administrative burden associated with conducting animal research in Switzerland (Figure 3: ID 5031). Many, especially those who never preregistered, perceived preregistration as an additional bureaucratic step that requires considerable time to complete (Figure 3: ID 5009). Furthermore, for several participants a major barrier to preregister was their lack of knowledge that such a practice existed (Figure 3: ID 5021). \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStructural barriers\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe described structural barriers concerned the regulatory requirements for animal experiments in Switzerland, involving the authorization procedure. A central topic raised, mostly by participants without preregistration experience, was the perceived redundancy of preregistration with the authorization procedure given animex-ch \u0026ndash; a governmental web application used to record license applications, reports, and announcements on animal experimentation (Figure 3: ID 5010). Participants also criticized the overregulation of animal research in Switzerland, suggesting that further requirements could reduce the number of studies and weaken international competitiveness (Figure 3: ID 5015; ID 5014). The perceived misalignment between preregistration and industry was also mentioned, as scientists in this sector either conduct internal preregistrations within their companies or refrain from preregistering altogether due to confidentiality agreements (Figure 3: ID 5015).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompatibility barriers\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompatibility barriers were centered around some of the most frequently mentioned topics, such as the perceived feasibility of preregistration for certain research designs, as well as its flexibility and adaptability. As previously noted, several participants without preregistration experience raised concerns about the lack of flexibility that preregistration imposes on their methodologies. Many emphasized that preregistration may be unsuitable for exploratory or basic research due to the unpredictable and often iterative nature of such studies, which often leads to deviations from initial plans, making preregistration, in their view, unfeasible (Figure 3: ID 5011; ID 5020). Nevertheless, some participants saw potential for this practice in confirmatory research (Figure 3: ID 5009).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEpistemic barriers\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants reported several epistemic barriers to preregistration related to credibility and perceived value. Concerns about intellectual property and idea scooping were the most frequently mentioned among researchers who had never preregistered (Figure 3: ID 5010), with a few also expressing worries about potential harassment by activists. In contrast, those familiar with preregistration held opposite views on these issues (Figure 3: ID 2029). Certain researchers without preregistration experience also expressed little interest in engaging with the practice or regarded it as unnecessary, viewing it as a measure that could restrict innovation. In addition, some participants emphasized that preregistration is not yet a commonly established practice within the animal research community, while others reported limited awareness of the potential benefits and impact (Figure 3: ID 5022). Finally, a small group questioned its value, noting that preregistration records are not checked and no official feedback is provided (Figure 3: ID 5015), with a few even suggesting that the system could be manipulated, as preregistration forms might be falsified.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFacilitators (Aim 3)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe facilitators to preregistering studies encompassed a range of perceived benefits associated with this practice, which clustered into four main themes: \u003cem\u003epractical\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003estructural\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003escientific quality\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eethical facilitators\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Figure 4). These benefits were reported primarily by participants with prior preregistration experience, although some of the researchers unfamiliar with the practice also recognized its potential. Nevertheless, a small subset without preregistration experience saw no benefit whatsoever in preregistering animal studies and expressed strong opposition to its use.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePractical facilitators\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral participants described practical facilitators related to workflow, noting that preregistration can support better study planning, improve time and project management, and foster more thorough methods and stronger study designs (Figure 4: ID 5027). In addition, preregistration was perceived to help with drafting papers and accelerating the publication process (Figure 4: ID 5032). In contrast to participants without preregistration experience, who expressed strong fears of idea scooping, those familiar with the practice view preregistration as a way of protecting intellectual property by providing a track record of their research steps (Figure 4: ID 5006).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStructural facilitators\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStructural facilitators referred to systemic and community-level factors that promote preregistration. Some participants mentioned that preregistration could facilitate collaborations and synergies and encourage feedback and scientific exchange (Figure 4: ID 5026). Others outlined its alignment with Open Science initiatives and its role in fostering greater public trust in animal research (Figure 4: ID 5021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eScientific quality facilitators\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA large number of participants discussed facilitators related to scientific quality, particularly concerning transparency, rigor, and reproducibility. Preregistration was described as a tool to increase transparency in science, prevent publication bias, and reduce parallel research (Figure 4: ID 5025). Several participants emphasized its potential in preventing questionable research practices, such as HARKing, selective reporting, and p-hacking (Figure 4: ID 5023). Furthermore, some mentioned that preregistration could reduce deviations from protocols and minimize researcher bias. Those in favor of the practice believed that preregistration could enhance reproducibility in science and lead to higher overall research quality (Figure 4: ID 5027).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEthical facilitators\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical facilitators reflected aspects related to animal welfare and scientific integrity. Certain participants reported that preregistration promotes better consideration of animal use in line with the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) and can hence enhance animal welfare (Figure 4: ID 5006; ID 5027). Others noted that preregistration fosters greater accountability by transparently documenting all study steps and reinforcing researchers\u0026rsquo; responsibility in animal experimentation (Figure 4: ID 5022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cspan id=\"_Toc208842203\"\u003eSuggestions for improvement (Aim 4)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants proposed a wide range of suggestions to improve the preregistration process and increase its uptake. No systematic differences emerged between participants with and without preregistration experience in the types of suggestions they proposed. Following the thematic analysis, the proposed solutions were organized into \u003cem\u003epractical\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003estructural suggestions\u003c/em\u003e (Figure 5).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePractical suggestions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePractical suggestions addressed aspects related to the specific templates and support required to facilitate preregistration and were further divided into two subthemes: tools and resources (Figure 5).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants emphasized the development of easy-to-use and flexible templates and suggested exploring AI-based tools to assist with preparing preregistrations (Figure 5: ID 5028). Some participants also highlighted the importance of strong confidentiality measures and longer embargo options (Figure 5: ID 5004).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeyond technical support, participants called for additional resources and institutional help, such as dedicated staff, funding, and assistance from animal welfare offices (Figure 5: ID 5014). They further recommended organizing workshops and training courses to increase researchers\u0026rsquo; awareness and familiarity with preregistration and sharing clear information on where and how to preregister (Figure 5: ID 5030).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStructural suggestions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStructural suggestions focused on necessary changes to the current authorization procedure and the existing institutional policies, and were further grouped into three subthemes: infrastructure, policy, and incentives (Figure 5).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn terms of infrastructure, several participants proposed linking preregistration with the application for licenses to conduct animal experiments, using the existing platform animex-ch to avoid duplication (Figure 5: ID 5006). Others, however, suggested connecting the government web application to an already established international preregistration platform rather than creating a new Swiss registry. \u0026nbsp;Some participants also proposed making the animex-ch application forms for animal experiment authorizations publicly available (Figure 5: ID 5025) or enabling internal preregistrations through university ethics commissions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePolicy-related suggestions included harmonizing guidelines across institutions and promoting international implementation of preregistration beyond Switzerland (Figure 5: ID 5003). Furthermore, most participants favored maintaining preregistration as a voluntary practice, noting that mandatory implementation could trigger very negative reactions within the research community (Figure 5: ID 5023). Some, however, supported a gradual implementation of mandatory preregistration or restricting it to confirmatory research only (Figure 5: ID 5007).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, participants emphasized the importance of endorsement from key stakeholders, including institutions, funders, journals, regulatory bodies, and the scientific community. Incentives such as publishing benefits, funding advantages, career rewards, and streamlined authorization processes for preregistered studies were generally preferred over enforcement measures (Figure 5: ID 5016). Many participants also stressed that clearly demonstrating the benefits of preregistration is essential to encourage broader engagement within the research community (Figure 5: ID 5025).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study constitutes the qualitative component of a comprehensive mixed-methods project on the present practice and attitudes of animal researchers concerning preregistration of animal experiments in Switzerland. To our knowledge, this is the first study to qualitatively assess animal researchers\u0026rsquo; experiences, views, barriers, and facilitators regarding preregistration, as well as to summarize their suggestions for improving its implementation and uptake.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eExperiences with preregistration\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e The interviews revealed low familiarity with preregistration both among participants and within their research communities. This finding was consistent with results from the survey conducted as part of the quantitative component of the mixed-methods project to which the current study belongs. In the survey, only 10% of respondents had ever preregistered a study, and 39% had never heard of preregistration before participating (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e). Together, these results provide methodological triangulation, confirming low awareness of preregistration in the field, across both qualitative and quantitative datasets. Our results stand in contrast to evidence from psychology, the life and medical sciences, experimental economics, and the social and behavioral sciences, where preregistration is better known and more commonly practiced (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR51 CR52\" citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e). This indicates that preregistration remains at an early stage of adoption in animal research, highlighting the need for promoting awareness and uptake in this field.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGeneral views\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe observed divergent views on preregistration depending on participants\u0026rsquo; prior experience with it. Those who had previously preregistered generally expressed more positive views, whereas those without such experience tended to be more critical. This pattern was also apparent in the complementary survey study, where preregistration experience emerged as the strongest predictor across all analyzed constructs, being associated with more positive attitudes, norms, intentions, and motivations, and fewer perceived obstacles toward preregistration (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, several participants perceived senior researchers as more resistant to the practice, often describing preregistration as something that early-career researchers might be more open to adopting. This pattern that was also mirrored in the quantitative survey study (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e). The agreement between quantitative and qualitative data provides cross-validation of our results, indicating that preregistration experience and seniority level play an important role in shaping researchers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the practice. Future efforts to increase preregistration adoption among animal scientists should be tailored to address the needs and perspectives of these specific subgroups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBarriers and facilitators\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur analysis revealed contrasting perceptions among participants regarding the barriers and facilitators to preregistration. With few exceptions, those who had never engaged in preregistration reported numerous barriers, whereas participants with prior experience emphasized a broad range of benefits associated with it. The main barriers concerned the substantial bureaucratic burden already associated with conducting animal research under Switzerland\u0026rsquo;s regulatory framework and the belief that preregistration would be too time-consuming, further adding to the researchers\u0026rsquo; administrative workload. These two barriers were also the most frequently reported by participants in the quantitative study (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e), reflecting consistency of results across methods. In addition, concerns about losing flexibility in conducting research and fears of idea scooping were further barriers highlighted by participants unfamiliar with preregistration. These assumptions reflect misconceptions of the preregistration process. Study plans can be modified as needed through amendments, and deviations transparently reported in publications, while preregistration records can be embargoed until the corresponding papers are published. Consistent with this, the quantitative study showed that fears of scooping ranked among the top five concerns among researchers who had never preregistered but did not appear among the top five actual problems encountered by those with preregistration experience (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e). In line with these concerns, another major barrier was the perceived incompatibility of preregistration with exploratory and basic research. Researchers whose work involves greater methodological flexibility appeared more skeptical of preregistration than those conducting studies in which procedures, tests, and methods can be defined a priori. Nevertheless, participants acknowledged the potential of preregistration for hypothesis testing and other forms of confirmatory research. Taken together, these findings indicate that perceived barriers to preregistration stem from practical challenges and conceptual misunderstandings of the process, as well as structural and methodological constraints specific to animal research. Addressing these misconceptions through education and reducing administrative hurdles may therefore be essential to improving acceptance and uptake of preregistration within the animal research community.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral facilitators of preregistration were also reported, primarily by participants with prior experience of using it. Preregistration was perceived as a tool offering practical and structural benefits, including improved study planning, stronger study methodology, and more efficient project management, as well as fostering collaboration, alignment with Open Science initiatives, and greater public trust in animal research. In addition, preregistration was associated with perceived scientific and ethical advantages, such as increased transparency, reduced questionable research practices, and greater accountability leading to better adherence to the 3Rs principles and more responsible animal use. Collectively, these findings suggest that researchers who have experience with preregistration view it as having the potential to enhance research quality and integrity, as well as to strengthen the ethical standards and the external trust in animal research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSuggestions for improvement\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral suggestions for improving the practice and uptake of preregistration were proposed by participants with both favorable and critical views of the practice. Participants emphasized the need to raise awareness and to provide training on the process and practical steps of preregistration, along with efforts to demonstrate its scientific benefits. Recommendations for simplifying procedures and linking preregistration to the authorization procedure for animal experiments were also made, with the aim of reducing administrative burden and streamlining the process. Importantly, the majority of participants stressed that preregistration should remain voluntary, with a focus on introducing incentives rather than enforcing mandatory participation. They noted that the research community may otherwise respond negatively, as many scientists are not yet sufficiently informed or convinced about the practice and would require additional guidance and support.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStrengths and limitations\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe central strength of the current study lies in its qualitative design, which enabled an in-depth exploration of researchers\u0026rsquo; perspectives and provided contextual nuanced and insight into how preregistration is experienced and understood in practice. Furthermore, the study was embedded within a larger mixed-methods project and complemented by a quantitative survey, allowing for methodological triangulation that cross-validated the findings and strengthened the overall conclusions. Nonetheless, given the qualitative design used, several limitations should be considered. First, the sample may have been subject to selection bias, as participation was voluntary and may have attracted researchers with particularly strong opinions on preregistration. Nevertheless, extensive efforts were made to achieve hierarchical stratification by including animal researchers with varying levels of preregistration experience, gender, linguistic region, and seniority. This diverse sample enabled us to capture a wide range of perspectives and experiences, identify unique challenges faced by subgroups within our participant pool, and enhance the transferability and robustness of our findings. Second, researcher bias may have influenced data collection, as the interviewer had prior experience with preregistration and was generally supportive of the practice. To minimize this bias, peer debriefing was employed. The interviewer (CP) engaged in regular discussions with a second researcher (SL), who led the transcription process and did not have prior preregistration experience, as well as with the study supervisor (HW), to critically reflect on potential preconceptions and ensure transparency. Third, interpretation bias might have influenced the analysis, as qualitative approaches involve a certain degree of subjectivity. To address this issue, investigator triangulation was implemented. The interviewer (CP) and a further researcher (GS), who lacked preregistration experience, independently coded the interview transcripts and conducted the thematic analysis to reduce subjective interpretation and enhance the credibility of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003ePreregistration remains largely uncommon and underused within animal research. While researchers with previous preregistration experience tend to recognize its value, those who have not yet engaged in it remain hesitant and often unconvinced of its benefits. Increasing awareness, addressing misconceptions, and providing targeted training and institutional support appear to be crucial for its wider adoption. In addition, simplifying procedures and linking preregistration to the existing authorization procedure may help reduce administrative barriers and encourage broader engagement. Nevertheless, our findings show that preregistration should remain voluntary and incentive-based to ensure acceptance and avoid opposition from the research community.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eFSVO \u0026ndash; Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eC.P.: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, software, validation, visualization, writing \u0026ndash; original draft, writing \u0026ndash; reviewing and editing. S.L.: data curation, writing \u0026ndash; original draft, writing \u0026ndash; reviewing and editing. G.S.: data curation, formal analysis, validation.E.V.: conceptualization, methodology, writing \u0026ndash; reviewing and editing.B.E.: conceptualization, methodology, writing \u0026ndash; reviewing and editing.H.W.: conceptualization, funding acquisition, methodology, resources, supervision, writing \u0026ndash; reviewing and editing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe would like to acknowledge and thank Dr. Annamari Alitalo and Dr. med. vet. Otto Maissen for identifying the eligible study directors and carrying out the recruitment process for this study, as well as for their professional conduct and excellent communication throughout the administration of this research. This work was conducted as part of SIRRO (Strengthen the Interoperability and Reusability of Research Outputs), a project supported by swissuniversities. We are also grateful to all participants for taking the time to contribute to our study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnonymized transcripts from participants who consented to their publication are available in the University of Bern data repository BORIS at the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.48620/92462\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaker M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature Publishing Group UK London; 2016.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWiggins BJ, Christopherson CD. The replication crisis in psychology: An overview for theoretical and philosophical psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. 2019;39(4):202.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeels R. Replicability and replication in the humanities. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2019;4(1):2.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHanin L. Why statistical inference from clinical trials is likely to generate false and irreproducible results. BMC medical research methodology. 2017;17(1):127.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFerguson J, Littman R, Christensen G, Paluck EL, Swanson N, Wang Z, et al. Survey of open science practices and attitudes in the social sciences. Nature Communications. 2023;14(1):5401.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePfadt JM, Barto\u0026scaron; F, Godmann HR, Waaijers M, Groot L, Heo I, et al. A Methodological Metamorphosis: The Rapid Rise of Bayesian Inference and Open Science Practices in Psychology. 2025.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeinl C, Scholman-V\u0026eacute;gh AM, Mellor D, Sch\u0026ouml;nfelder G, Strech D, Chamuleau S, Bert B. Declaration of common standards for the preregistration of animal research\u0026mdash;speeding up the scientific progress. PNAS nexus. 2022;1(1):pgac016.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStr\u0026oslash;mland E. Preregistration and reproducibility. Journal of Economic Psychology. 2019;75:102143.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBert B, Heinl C, Chmielewska J, Schwarz F, Grune B, Hensel A, et al. Refining animal research: the animal study registry. PLoS biology. 2019;17(10):e3000463.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNosek BA, Beck ED, Campbell L, Flake JK, Hardwicke TE, Mellor DT, et al. Preregistration is hard, and worthwhile. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2019;23(10):815-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, Mellor DT. The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018;115(11):2600-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMenon JM, van der Naald M, Chamuleau SA, Duncker DJ. Preclinicaltrials. eu: prospective registration of animal studies. Oxford University Press US; 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHardwicke TE, Wagenmakers E-J. Reducing bias, increasing transparency and calibrating confidence with preregistration. Nature Human Behaviour. 2023;7(1):15-26.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKerr NL. HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and social psychology review. 1998;2(3):196-217.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMunaf\u0026ograve; MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DV, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie du Sert N, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature human behaviour. 2017;1(1):1-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan den Akker OR, van Assen MA, Bakker M, Elsherif M, Wong TK, Wicherts JM. Preregistration in practice: A comparison of preregistered and non-preregistered studies in psychology. Behavior Research Methods. 2023:1-10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLogg JM, Dorison CA. Pre-registration: Weighing costs and benefits for researchers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2021;167:18-27.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWagenmakers E-J, Wetzels R, Borsboom D, van der Maas HL, Kievit RA. An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on psychological science. 2012;7(6):632-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eToth AA, Banks GC, Mellor D, O\u0026rsquo;Boyle EH, Dickson A, Davis DJ, et al. Study preregistration: An evaluation of a method for transparent reporting. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2021;36:553-71.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScheel AM, Schijen MR, Lakens D. An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard psychology literature with registered reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 2021;4(2):25152459211007467.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSoderberg CK, Errington TM, Schiavone SR, Bottesini J, Thorn FS, Vazire S, et al. Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model. Nature Human Behaviour. 2021;5(8):990-7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDechartres A, Ravaud P, Atal I, Riveros C, Boutron I. Association between trial registration and treatment effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study. BMC medicine. 2016;14:1-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEmdin C, Odutayo A, Hsiao A, Shakir M, Hopewell S, Rahimi K, Altman DG. Association of cardiovascular trial registration with positive study findings: Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials (ESORT). JAMA internal medicine. 2015;175(2):304-7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOdutayo A, Emdin CA, Hsiao AJ, Shakir M, Copsey B, Dutton S, et al. Association between trial registration and positive study findings: cross sectional study (Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials\u0026mdash;ESORT). bmj. 2017;356.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSch\u0026auml;fer T, Schwarz MA. The meaningfulness of effect sizes in psychological research: Differences between sub-disciplines and the impact of potential biases. Frontiers in psychology. 2019;10:442717.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFran\u0026ccedil;a TF, Monserrat JM. Reproducibility crisis in science or unrealistic expectations? EMBO reports. 2018;19(6):e46008.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchulz JB, Cookson MR, Hausmann L. The impact of fraudulent and irreproducible data to the translational research crisis\u0026ndash;solutions and implementation. Journal of Neurochemistry. 2016;139:253-70.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnvari F, Lakens D. The replicability crisis and public trust in psychological science. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology. 2018;3(3):266-86.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArrowsmith J, Miller P. Phase II and Phase III attrition rates 2011-2012. Nature reviews Drug discovery. 2013;12(8):569-70.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBegley CG, Ellis LM. Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483(7391):531-3.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchmidt‐Pogoda A, Bonberg N, Koecke MHM, Strecker JK, Wellmann J, Bruckmann NM, et al. Why most acute stroke studies are positive in animals but not in patients: a systematic comparison of preclinical, early phase, and phase 3 clinical trials of neuroprotective agents. Annals of neurology. 2020;87(1):40-51.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJarvis MF, Williams M. Irreproducibility in preclinical biomedical research: perceptions, uncertainties, and knowledge gaps. Trends in pharmacological sciences. 2016;37(4):290-302.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKimmelman J, Anderson JA. Should preclinical studies be registered? Nature biotechnology. 2012;30(6):488-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVoelkl B, Altman NS, Forsman A, Forstmeier W, Gurevitch J, Jaric I, et al. Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2020;21(7):384-93.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature reviews Drug discovery. 2011;10(9):712-.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWieschowski S, Silva DS, Strech D. Animal study registries: results from a stakeholder analysis on potential strengths, weaknesses, facilitators, and barriers. PLoS biology. 2016;14(11):e2000391.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePriboi C, Mayer B, Vergauwe E, Elger BS, W\u0026uuml;rbel H. Researchers\u0026apos; perspectives on preregistration in animal research. bioRxiv. 2025:2025.11.07.687141.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWold B, Tabak L. ACD working group on enhancing rigor, transparency, and translatability in animal research: final report. Bethesda (MD): NIH Advisory Committee to the Director. 2021.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJeffers MS, MacLellan A, Avey MT, Menon JM, Sunohara-Neilson J, Fergusson DA, Lalu MM. A call to implement preclinical study registration in animal ethics review. Plos Biology. 2023;21(10):e3002293.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePriboi C, Zellers S, Scheel A, W\u0026uuml;rbel H, Wever K. Evaluating the impact of preregistration and registered reports on replicability, reproducibility, and publication success of research studies: A systematic review. Preregistration on Open Science Framework. 2024 https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PG3NY.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWillroth EC, Atherton OE. Best laid plans: A guide to reporting preregistration deviations. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 2024;7(1):25152459231213802.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Academic medicine. 2014;89(9):1245-51.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology. 2006;3(2):77-101.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun V, Clarke V. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, \u0026amp; K. J. Sher (Eds), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57-71). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2012.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun V, Clarke V, Hayfield N, Terry G. Thematic analysis. Handbook of research methods in health social sciences: Springer; 2019. p. 843-60.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRehman AA, Alharthi K. An introduction to research paradigms. International journal of educational investigations. 2016;3(8):51-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePervin N, Mokhtar M. The interpretivist research paradigm: A subjective notion of a social context. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development. 2022;11(2):419-28.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmed SK. Sample size for saturation in qualitative research: Debates, definitions, and strategies. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health. 2025;5:100171.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eR\u0026auml;diker S, Kuckartz U. Focused analysis of qualitative interviews with MAXQDA. MaxQDA Press. 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpitzer L, Mueller S. Registered report: Survey on attitudes and experiences regarding preregistration in psychological research. Plos one. 2023;18(3):e0281086.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGopalakrishna G, Wicherts JM, Vink G, Stoop I, van den Akker OR, Ter Riet G, Bouter LM. Prevalence of responsible research practices among academics in The Netherlands. F1000Research. 2022;11:471.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eImai T, Toussaert S, Baillon A, Dreber A, Erta\u0026ccedil; S, Johannesson M, et al. Pre-Registration and Pre-Analysis Plans in Experimental Economics. I4R Discussion Paper Series; 2025.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChristensen G, Wang Z, Levy Paluck E, Swanson N, Birke D, Miguel E, Littman R. Open science practices are on the rise: The state of social science (3S) survey. 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 and 2 are available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"animal experiments, animal research, open research practices, preregistration, transparency, open science, reproducibility, animal welfare","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8194213/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8194213/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOver the past few years, the open science movement has witnessed growing interest from the scientific community in improving replicability and reproducibility in research. Preregistration is considered a valuable tool in promoting transparency on the conduct of research and in reducing questionable research practices. However, despite its benefits, preregistration is still rare in most fields of research, including animal research. Furthermore, there is limited information available on potential facilitators and barriers to preregistration in animal experimentation. Thus, this study addresses a gap in the existing literature by exploring researchers' experiences and views on preregistration, identifying facilitators and barriers, and gathering suggestions for better uptake.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study constitutes the qualitative component of a larger cross-sectional mixed-methods project. Participants were recruited through an item in the online questionnaire of a quantitative survey, and snowballing and purposive sampling were used to increase the initial sample. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Swiss-based researchers who currently or previously held a license for animal experiments, or who worked in animal research. The final sample consisted of 30 interviews, which were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed by two independent researchers using MAXQDA.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants described preregistration as uncommon in animal research, and their views on the practice varied according to prior experience. Those who had previously preregistered studies expressed more positive views, whereas those without such experience were generally more critical. The main barriers to preregistration included administrative burden and time constraints, along with concerns about limited flexibility, and perceived incompatibility with exploratory research. Reported benefits comprise better study planning, adherence to good research practices, increased transparency and accountability, and overall perceived improved research quality. To improve the preregistration process and increase the uptake, participants suggested targeted training, institutional support, integrating preregistration with the existing governmental licensing system for animal experimentation, and maintaining voluntary rather than mandatory participation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnimal researchers\u0026rsquo; reflections on preregistration provide an invaluable source of information to guide tailored interventions aimed at facilitating broader adoption. Our findings corroborate those from a complementary quantitative survey study, further strengthening the validity and robustness of our conclusions.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Preregistration in Animal Experimentation – A Qualitative Study on Researchers’ Views in Switzerland","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-12-04 00:08:42","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8194213/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"e0a52e17-7093-440b-84bf-c68753539b08","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 4th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-12T11:42:23+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-12-04 00:08:42","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8194213","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8194213","identity":"rs-8194213","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}