Pre-registration and Registered Reports in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology: An Evidence-Based Appraisal by SORTEE

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher
AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-03 · read from full text

The paper is an evidence-based appraisal from SORTEE examining how pre-registration and Registered Reports affect research transparency and reliability, drawing on cross-disciplinary evidence rather than presenting new experiments. It describes pre-registration as a time-stamped read-only plan intended to reduce questionable research practices such as p-hacking and HARKing, and Registered Reports as a two-stage peer review format that further aims to reduce publication bias and research waste. The appraisal finds mixed evidence for pre-registration’s benefits—highlighting that deviations from pre-registered plans may occur and be undisclosed—while it reports clearer evidence that Registered Reports reduce QRPs and publication bias and improve published article quality. It also notes a limitation that it does not rely on ecology and evolution–specific research, where uptake is currently very low. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

1. A pre-registration is a time-stamped, read-only research plan that is written prior to data collection and analysis. This practice aims to increase transparency and reduce questionable research practices (QRPs) such as p-hacking and HARKing. Registered Reports are an article format with two stage peer review, that integrates Pre-registration and peer review and aims to additionally reduce research waste and publication bias. 2. Cross-disciplinary evidence for the benefits of Pre-registration in terms of reducing QRPs is mixed; deviations from pre-registered plans often happen and are not disclosed, reducing their value in reducing QRPs. 3. There is much clearer evidence for Registered Reports reducing QRPs and publication bias, as well as increasing the quality of published articles. 4. There is no specific research on Pre-registration and Registered Reports in ecology and evolution, and uptake of the practices is currently very low.
Full text 2,309 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint. You must log in to post a comment. There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article. This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint. Add a Comment You must log in to post a comment. Comments There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article. 1. A pre-registration is a time-stamped, read-only research plan that is written prior to data collection and analysis. This practice aims to increase transparency and reduce questionable research practices (QRPs) such as p-hacking and HARKing. Registered Reports are an article format with two stage peer review, that integrates Pre-registration and peer review and aims to additionally reduce research waste and publication bias. 2. Cross-disciplinary evidence for the benefits of Pre-registration in terms of reducing QRPs is mixed; deviations from pre-registered plans often happen and are not disclosed, reducing their value in reducing QRPs. 3. There is much clearer evidence for Registered Reports reducing QRPs and publication bias, as well as increasing the quality of published articles. 4. There is no specific research on Pre-registration and Registered Reports in ecology and evolution, and uptake of the practices is currently very low. https://doi.org/10.32942/X2C37Q Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Published: 2026-03-30 15:27 Last Updated: 2026-03-30 15:27 CC BY Attribution 4.0 International Conflict of interest statement: We believe there are no conflicts of interest. All authors are members of SORTEE. EIC was on the board of directors and was the 2025 President. SORTEE is sponsored by Peer Community In (PCI) and the Center of Open Science (COS); however, these organisations did not have a role in the creation of this appraisal. PCI runs a Registered Reports reviewing service (PCI-RR). However, this service is run for free by PCI, and so there is no financial gain, and we do not explicitly recommend (nor disapprove of) PCI-RR in this statement. COS hosts Pre-registrations on the Open Science Framework (OSF). Again, there is no financial gain for COS from Pre-registration submissions. Data and Code Availability Statement: Not Applicable Language: English

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00