Restriction of researcher degrees of freedom through the Psychological Research Preregistration-Quantitative (PRP-QUANT) Templateuse asterix (*) to get italics

Lisa Spitzer & Stefanie MuellerPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

2024

<p>Preregistration can help to restrict researcher degrees of freedom and thereby ensure the integrity of research findings. However, its ability to restrict such flexibility depends on whether researchers specify their study plan in sufficient detail and adhere to this plan. Previous research indicates higher restrictiveness when preregistrations are based on structured versus unstructured template formats, although there is room for further improvement. The planned study aims to build on these findings and investigate the restrictiveness of preregistrations based on the PRP-QUANT Template, an extensive template that aids the preregistration of quantitative studies in psychology. Preregistrations will be sampled from PsychArchives and coded for their level of restrictiveness using the coding scheme of Bakker et al. (2020) and Heirene et al. (2021). We predict that preregistrations based on the PRP-QUANT Template (<em>N</em> = [74]) are more restrictive than preregistrations based on the OSF Preregistration Template (<em>N</em> = 52, Bakker et al., 2020, hypothesis 1). We will also inspect whether peer review can contribute further to restricting flexibility and predict higher restrictiveness for peer-reviewed (<em>n</em> = [27]) than non-peer-reviewed preregistrations (<em>n</em> = [47], hypothesis 2), using nested Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests. Additionally, we will examine adherence to the preregistered plans in the associated publications (<em>N</em> = [17]). [In line/in contrast] to hypothesis 1, PRP-QUANT preregistrations [had significantly/did not have] higher restrictiveness scores than OSF Preregistrations. Moreover, [consistent/inconsistent] with hypothesis 2, peer-reviewed preregistrations [had significantly/did not have] higher restrictiveness than non-peer-reviewed ones. […] percent of the associated articles included undeclared deviations. We discuss the implications of our findings for the PRP-QUANT Template and structured templates in general.</p>

meta-research, meta-science, open science, preregistration

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Social sciences

2023-06-01 10:39:20

Daniel Lakens