Physicists are interested in seeing what scientists might come up with that could potentially be amenable to being published in a registered report format. But it is difficult to imagine how one can truly hope to construct an experiment that would yield statistically significant and robust null or positive results, they say. "Sometimes experimental design is better for our conventional article rather than the registered report format," says Mary Elizabeth Stearns.
Many researchers have been critical of the biases that the publication process can introduce into science. For example, they argue that a focus on publishing interesting or significant results can give a false impression of what broader research is finding about a particular field.
To tackle this, some scientists have championed the publication of Registered Reports. These articles split the peer review process in two, first critically assessing the methodology of a research study before data is collected, and again when the results are found. The idea being to encourage robust research regardless of the outcome.
In this episode of Nature's Take we discuss Nature's recent adoption of the format, the pros and cons of Registered Reports, and what more needs to be done to tackle publication bias.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.