How to Write a Registered Report: Structure, Format, Examples

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Key Takeaways

• Registered Reports are a two-stage publishing format in which peer review occurs before data collection, making publication guaranteed regardless of results, as long as the approved protocol is followed.
• The format directly combats publication bias, p-hacking, HARKing, and selective reporting by decoupling the decision to publish from the direction of results.
• A strong Stage 1 submission requires a precisely formulated research question, pre-specified hypotheses, a detailed methods and analysis plan, outcome-neutral quality checks, and a credible sampling plan.
• Stage 2 requires faithful adherence to the Stage 1 protocol; all deviations must be transparently reported, and any additional analyses must be clearly labeled as exploratory.

Contents

• Glossary of Key Terms
• What Are Registered Reports and Why Do They Matter?
• Types of Registered Reports
• Overview of the Two-Stage Process
• Planning Your Registered Report
• Writing the Stage 1 Manuscript
• The Design Summary Table: Mapping Questions to Analyses
• Data Availability and Open Science Requirements
• Administrative, Ethical, and Funding Requirements
• What Happens During Stage 1 Peer Review?
• Conducting the Study After In-Principle Acceptance
• Writing the Stage 2 Manuscript
• Stage 1 Development Checklist
• Registered Reports and Early-Career Researchers
• Secondary Registered Reports: Using Existing Data
• Registered Reports for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
• Frequently Asked Questions
• References

Glossary of Key Terms

Term	Definition
Confirmatory Analysis	A pre-specified statistical test directly linked to a stated hypothesis. Must be reported in Stage 2 regardless of outcome.
Design Summary Table	A structured table mapping each research question to its hypothesis, sampling plan, analysis, and interpretation criteria.
Exploratory Analysis	Any post-hoc, data-driven analysis not pre-specified at Stage 1. Must be clearly labeled as exploratory in Stage 2.
HARKing	Hypothesizing After the Results are Known: the practice of presenting post-hoc hypotheses as though they were formulated in advance.
In-Principle Acceptance (IPA)	The formal commitment by a journal to publish the final Stage 2 paper provided the authors follow their approved Stage 1 protocol.
Open Science Framework (OSF)	A free, open-source platform used to preregister study protocols, store materials, and share data; the standard repository for Registered Report preregistrations.
Outcome-Neutral Check	Also called a positive control, manipulation check, or quality check: a test that verifies the study worked as intended, independent of the main hypothesis result.
p-Hacking	Repeated or selective analysis of data until a statistically significant result is achieved. A form of researcher degrees of freedom exploitation.
PCI RR	Peer Community In Registered Reports: a supra-journal, discipline-agnostic platform that reviews and grants in-principle acceptance to Registered Reports from any field.
Pre-registration	The practice of publicly documenting hypotheses, methods, and analysis plans before collecting or analyzing data.
Publication Bias	The tendency for journals to favor publishing studies with positive or statistically significant results over null or negative findings.
Registered Report (RR)	A two-stage article format in which a study protocol is peer reviewed and accepted before data collection, with publication guaranteed on outcome-neutral grounds.
Sampling Plan	A pre-specified plan detailing how many observations will be collected, the stopping rule for data collection, and the justification for the chosen sample size.
Stage 1 Manuscript	The first submission in a Registered Report: contains the introduction, hypotheses, methods, and analysis plan. Reviewed before data collection begins.
Stage 2 Manuscript	The final submission: builds on the approved Stage 1 by adding results and discussion sections. Reviewed for adherence to the Stage 1 protocol.

What Are Registered Reports and Why Do They Matter?

Registered Reports (RRs) are a two-stage publishing format in which peer review of the study protocol occurs before any data are collected. Publication of the final article is guaranteed as long as the pre-approved protocol is followed, making the decision entirely results-agnostic.

The format was introduced around 2013 in response to a mounting replication crisis across the behavioral and biomedical sciences. At the time, widespread evidence showed that publication bias, p-hacking, HARKing, selective outcome reporting, and underpowered studies were systematically distorting the scientific literature. By decoupling editorial judgment from the direction of results, Registered Reports structurally remove these incentives.

Registered Reports are now offered in more than 300 journals across virtually every empirical discipline, including psychology, neuroscience, medicine, ecology, economics, and the social sciences. The format has also expanded beyond its confirmatory hypothesis-testing origins and now accommodates systematic reviews, meta-analyses, secondary data analyses, qualitative studies, and programmatic multi-study submissions.

Why the Standard Publication Model Creates Problems

In traditional publishing, editorial decisions rest heavily on whether results are statistically significant or “novel.” This creates several systemic problems:

• Positive results are published at far higher rates than negative or null results: studies have found that nearly all positive antidepressant trials are published, compared with roughly half of negative ones.
• p-Hacking and HARKing are incentivized because researchers know that positive, clean findings are required for acceptance.
• Replication studies and resource-intensive projects with uncertain outcomes are discouraged because publication is contingent on results.
• The file-drawer effect accumulates unpublished null results, making the published literature a biased sample of all research conducted.

How Registered Reports Address These Problems

Problem in Standard Publishing	Mechanism in Registered Reports	Outcome
Publication bias toward positive results	IPA granted before results are known	Null results are equally publishable
p-Hacking and selective analysis	Analysis plan pre-specified and locked at Stage 1	Researcher degrees of freedom are constrained
HARKing	Hypotheses recorded before data collection	Post-hoc hypotheses cannot be disguised as predictions
Low statistical power	Reviewers evaluate sampling plan at Stage 1	Underpowered studies are corrected before they run
Inadequate methods detail	Methods reviewed for replicability at Stage 1	Reproducibility and transparency are structurally enforced
Delayed feedback on design flaws	Peer review occurs before data collection	Design improvements happen when they can still be acted on

Types of Registered Reports

The Registered Report format has expanded significantly since its origins in confirmatory experimental psychology. The following types are now supported by various journals and platforms, though not all journals accept every type:

Type	Description	Best Suited For
Confirmatory (Primary)	New data collected to test pre-specified hypotheses.	Experimental and quasi-experimental research
Secondary (Existing Data)	Uses datasets that already exist. Requires explicit bias-control documentation.	Administrative data, large cohort datasets, archival records
Meta-analysis / Systematic Review	Protocol for research synthesis with IPA before full data extraction.	Evidence synthesis, guideline development
Qualitative	Pre-specifies sampling strategy, analytic approach, and reflexivity plan.	Interview studies, discourse analysis, ethnography
Incremental	Adds a new prespecified study to an already-accepted Stage 1.	Multi-study sequences where study 2 depends on study 1 results
Programmatic	Multiple Stage 2 papers derived from a single approved Stage 1 protocol.	Large-scale longitudinal or multi-wave projects

Overview of the Two-Stage Process

A Registered Report proceeds through two discrete and sequential stages. Each stage involves a distinct manuscript submission and a separate round of peer review. The two stages are connected by a formal in-principle acceptance that guarantees publication of Stage 2 provided the authors adhere to the Stage 1 protocol.

Stage 1: Study Protocol

The Stage 1 manuscript is submitted before any primary data are collected. It is reviewed on the merits of the research question and the rigor of the planned methods. The title of a Stage 1 manuscript must include the label “Stage 1 Registered Report” (or the journal-specific equivalent) to clearly signal its status.

Stage 1 includes:

• Introduction: background literature, theoretical motivation, and pre-specified hypotheses
• Methods: participant/sample criteria, design, materials, procedures, and blinding strategy
• Analysis plan: pre-specified statistical tests mapped explicitly to each hypothesis
• Sampling plan: target sample size, statistical power calculation, and stopping rule
• Outcome-neutral checks: positive controls and quality checks independent of the main hypothesis
• Pilot data (if available): used to establish feasibility, not to calculate power
• Timeline and study status: confirms data collection has not started

Stage 2: Research Article

After completing the study according to the Stage 1 protocol, authors submit a Stage 2 manuscript. This manuscript builds directly on the approved Stage 1 by adding results and discussion sections. The introduction and methods must remain substantively unchanged, aside from correcting factual errors and converting future tense to past tense.

Stage 2 includes:

• Introduction and methods: carried forward from Stage 1, with tense changes and minor factual corrections only
• Results: all confirmatory analyses pre-specified at Stage 1, reported in full regardless of direction
• Exploratory analyses: any additional analyses clearly labeled as exploratory, presented with appropriate methodological justification
• Deviations table: transparent documentation of any departures from the Stage 1 protocol, with justification
• Discussion: interpretation, limitations, and implications; new literature not available at Stage 1 may be incorporated here

The In-Principle Acceptance

In-principle acceptance (IPA) is the formal commitment issued by the journal after successful Stage 1 peer review. It signifies that the journal will publish the final Stage 2 paper regardless of whether results support or contradict the stated hypotheses, provided the authors conduct the study as outlined. IPA can be listed on a curriculum vitae as a concrete output, which is particularly valuable for early-career researchers.

Planning Your Registered Report

Should You Choose a Journal First or a Platform First?

Authors have two primary routes for submission: a single journal that offers Registered Reports, or the supra-journal platform Peer Community In Registered Reports (PCI RR). The choice should be made before drafting begins, as journal requirements differ substantially.

Route	Advantages	Considerations
Single Journal Submission	Direct relationship with a disciplinary journal; specific audience; clear scope.	Must meet that journal’s specific power, data sharing, and format requirements. Risk of rejection and starting over.
PCI RR (Supra-journal Platform)	Free; accepts any discipline; IPA cascades automatically to all PCI RR-friendly journals; no word limits.	Authors must still submit to a PCI RR-friendly journal for final publication if a conventional journal DOI is needed.

Before drafting, check the following from your target outlet’s author guidelines:

• Whether the journal accepts the type of RR you intend to write (confirmatory, secondary, qualitative, etc.)
• Minimum statistical power requirements (commonly 90% or 95%)
• Data sharing and materials sharing policies
• Requirements for open code and analysis scripts
• Ethics approval requirements at Stage 1 versus post-IPA
• Word limits, appendix policies, and whether supplementary materials count toward limits

When Should Ethics Approval Be Obtained?

Ethics approval timing must be planned carefully, as it interacts directly with Stage 1 submission requirements. Some journals require proof of ethics approval at Stage 1; others permit post-IPA approval.

• If the journal requires ethics approval at Stage 1: apply before submission. Note that peer review may require design changes, which may require ethics amendments.
• If the institution allows amendments: obtain approval before Stage 1, then submit amendments for any changes prompted by reviewer feedback after IPA.
• If no flexibility exists: wait until IPA is received before applying, then account for the approval timeline in your estimated Stage 2 submission date.
• Never begin primary data collection before both IPA and ethics approval (where required) are in place.

Writing the Stage 1 Manuscript

Title Page and Abstract

The title must clearly identify the submission as a Stage 1 Registered Report. It should include the study design, the target population, and the key intervention or manipulation under investigation. The abstract should meet the journal’s word and structure limits, and should summarize the research question, the key outcome variables, the methodological framework, and the expected contribution, without overemphasizing the anticipated results.

The abstract must include:

• A statement of the research question and its importance
• A brief description of the planned study design
• For clinical trials: registry name, registration number, and registration date
• Expected completion date for the study

Introduction: Research Question, Background, and Hypotheses

The introduction must establish the empirical validity of the research question, demonstrate command of the relevant literature, and present hypotheses that follow logically from that theoretical foundation. The question and its importance must be defensible regardless of how the results ultimately turn out.

Key requirements for the introduction:

Component	What to Include
Research Question	State the main question clearly. Explain why it is important. Describe the theoretical or practical gap it addresses.
Literature Review	Summarize prior work, competing theories, and unresolved debates. Identify what makes this study different from existing research.
Hypotheses	List all hypotheses explicitly, numbered (H1, H2, etc.). Link each to the theoretical rationale. Distinguish primary from secondary hypotheses.
Informative Regardless of Outcome	Explain what can be concluded whether the hypothesis is supported or not. This is critical for Stage 1 evaluation.
Timeline	Provide the estimated completion date for data collection and an anticipated Stage 2 submission date.

Note: Once Stage 1 peer review is complete and IPA is granted, the introduction cannot be substantially altered. Only factual errors, typographic corrections, and tense changes are permitted. Any pertinent new literature published after IPA should be placed in the discussion, not the introduction.

Methods: What Must Be Pre-Specified

The methods section is the analytical core of a Stage 1 submission and will be evaluated more rigorously than in a standard article. The level of detail must be sufficient for an independent researcher to replicate the study without seeking any additional information. Everything that can be decided in advance must be decided and documented here.

Study Design and Methodological Framework

• State the basic design type: randomized controlled trial, pre-post comparison, cross-sectional survey, difference-in-differences, systematic review, etc.
• Justify why this design is appropriate for the research question.
• If the design is observational or quasi-experimental, describe the source of variation being exploited and explain why it can support causal inference.

Participants and Sampling

• Define the unit of analysis: individuals, organizations, geographic units, etc.
• Specify inclusion and exclusion criteria explicitly and comprehensively. These criteria are very difficult to change after data collection begins without introducing bias.
• Describe how participants will be identified and recruited.
• State the projected sample size and provide statistical power calculations to justify it, including the target effect size and reasoning for that target.
• For Bayesian designs: specify prior distributions and the Bayes factor threshold required to support H1 versus H0.
• State the minimum effect size the study is powered to detect.
• Describe the stopping rule: the exact condition that will terminate data collection.

Intervention and Procedure

• Describe the intervention or manipulation in sufficient detail to allow replication: what it is, when it occurs, where, by whom, and how.
• Describe randomization procedures, including the sequence generation method, allocation concealment, and unit of randomization.
• Specify blinding arrangements. If blinding is not possible, state what measures will minimize performance and expectancy biases.
• Describe all treatment arms and whether they are exclusive or overlapping.

Data Collection and Processing

• Identify all data sources and data collection instruments.
• For questionnaires: state whether the instrument is validated. If not, describe pre-testing procedures.
• Specify pre-processing steps, data management procedures, and any contingent analysis decisions using explicit IF-THEN statements.
• For longitudinal designs: provide the full schedule including enrollment, intervention delivery, and each outcome assessment time point.
• Cite any data management plans.

Statistical Analysis Plan

The analysis plan is the most scrutinized element of a Stage 1 submission. Every confirmatory analysis must be pre-specified with an exact correspondence between each scientific hypothesis and each statistical test.

• Specify the statistical method(s) for testing each hypothesis and state their underlying assumptions.
• Provide the statistical model in its functional form using text equations, not image files.
• State rules for handling missing values and define how outliers will be identified and treated.
• Address multiple comparisons: specify the correction procedure (such as Family-Wise Error Rate or False Discovery Rate control) or justify an alternative approach.
• For any analysis that is contingent on prior results (e.g., parametric versus nonparametric selection), specify the IF-THEN decision rule.
• Specify any planned heterogeneity or subgroup analyses and provide theoretical justification for the groupings.
• Describe how results will be interpreted under each possible outcome pattern.

Outcome-Neutral Checks

Outcome-neutral checks confirm that the study worked as intended, independent of whether the main hypothesis is supported. They test auxiliary assumptions about the design, for example that the independent variable manipulated what it was intended to manipulate.

Examples of outcome-neutral checks include:

• Manipulation checks: confirm the experimental manipulation had its intended effect on a variable other than the primary dependent variable
• Quality checks: confirm that data meet expected distributional or procedural conditions, such as absence of floor or ceiling effects
• Positive controls: include a known effect that the study design should reliably detect, serving as evidence that the apparatus is functioning correctly

Where a positive control or quality check requires a statistical test, ensure that test is itself adequately powered. Failure of an outcome-neutral check does not automatically void the IPA, but may require discussion with the editor.

Pilot Data

Pilot data are not required but are strongly recommended, particularly for novel or complex designs. Pilot data are useful for demonstrating feasibility, testing the logic of data processing pipelines, identifying unanticipated exclusion criteria, and refining materials. They are generally not appropriate for calculating power estimates, as small pilot samples introduce substantial bias into effect size estimates.

Any research conducted prior to Stage 1 submission, including pilot studies, must be explicitly noted in the text, for example: “All steps described in this section were completed prior to submitting the Stage 1 Registered Report.”

Software and Code

• List all software to be used with version numbers.
• For author-written code: describe the version control system and confirm the code will be openly available before Stage 2 publication.
• For proprietary software: provide an open alternative that can replicate the analysis.
• Pre-writing analysis code before Stage 1 submission (using pilot or simulated data) is strongly recommended because code is more precise than narrative description.

Dissemination and Study Status

• Include a statement on how findings and underlying data will be disseminated.
• State the current study status: data collection must not have started.
• Confirm where the study currently sits on the proposed timeline.

The Design Summary Table: Mapping Questions to Analyses

One of the most effective tools for ensuring clarity and internal consistency in a Stage 1 submission is a design summary table. This table provides an unambiguous map from each research question through to the analysis and interpretation criteria, making it easy for reviewers to verify that every prediction is explicitly tested.

A design summary table typically contains five columns:

Research Question	Hypothesis	Sampling Plan	Analysis Plan	Interpretation of Outcomes
Q1: Does X affect Y in population Z?	H1: X will increase Y relative to control.	N = 120 (80% power, d = 0.5, alpha = .05)	Independent samples t-test on Y scores.	Significant: supports H1. Non-significant with BF < 1/3: evidence for null.

When using IF-THEN contingency rules (for example, selecting between parametric and nonparametric tests depending on a normality check), these should be specified in the analysis plan column. A blank template and worked examples are available through the PCI RR guidance documents.

Data Availability and Open Science Requirements

All Registered Reports must include a Data Availability Statement. This applies even when no data are yet associated with the Stage 1 submission. The statement should describe where the data supporting the results will be made available upon Stage 2 publication.

Standard requirements across most journals include:

• Raw data accompanied by sufficient documentation (README files, codebooks, or guidance notes) to allow independent replication of the analysis pipeline.
• Pilot data files time-stamped to demonstrate they were collected prior to the Stage 1 submission date. No other pre-submission data are admissible in Stage 2.
• Analysis code made openly available, typically through the Open Science Framework, GitHub, or an equivalent open repository.
• A data management plan (where one exists) cited in the methods section.

Where open data sharing is not possible (for example, with sensitive clinical data or proprietary datasets), authors must clearly explain the reason and describe what access arrangements are available to other researchers.

Administrative, Ethical, and Funding Requirements

Ethical Approval

All research must be conducted within an appropriate ethical framework. At Stage 1, authors must either provide proof of ethics approval or describe their intended consent procedures and confirm the submission has been made. The methods section should describe the ethical framework, the consent process, and the institutional or committee details.

For clinical trials: registration details (registry name, registration number, date, and registry URL) must appear in both the abstract and the other required information section. Trials must follow SPIRIT guidelines. Some journals also require a completed SPIRIT checklist as a reporting guideline.

For systematic reviews: protocols should be registered in PROSPERO, and submissions must follow PRISMA-P guidelines with a completed checklist submitted alongside the manuscript.

Funding and Competing Interests

• List all funding sources with funder names, grant numbers (where applicable), and the recipient named.
• State explicitly if no grants are involved in the work.
• Disclose all financial, personal, or professional competing interests for every author.
• If no competing interests exist, include an explicit declaration to that effect.

Authorship

List all authors who played a significant role in developing the research, regardless of whether they will be involved in data collection. Provide full affiliation information, institutional address, postal code, and email address for all authors. Indicate corresponding authors clearly.

What Happens During Stage 1 Peer Review?

Stage 1 peer review evaluates the protocol on methodological and conceptual grounds, not on the promise or likelihood of a particular result. Reviewers assess whether the study is worth doing and whether the design is capable of answering the question regardless of outcome.

Reviewers at Stage 1 typically evaluate:

• Is the rationale for the study clearly described and does it establish the empirical validity of the question?
• Is the study design appropriate and does it have sufficient statistical power or sampling justification?
• Are outcome-neutral checks pre-specified and adequate to ensure the study can test its own hypotheses?
• Is the analysis plan sufficiently precise and explicitly linked to each hypothesis?
• Is the level of methodological detail sufficient for independent replication?
• Are data sharing and code sharing commitments made?

Following Stage 1 review and any required revisions, the editor issues an in-principle acceptance. At this point, the authors must preregister their Stage 1 manuscript on the Open Science Framework (or an equivalent public repository) using the “Registered Report Protocol Preregistration” option. Preregistration may be under embargo during the study period to prevent participants from reading the hypotheses.

Conducting the Study After In-Principle Acceptance

Once IPA is received and the Stage 1 is preregistered, data collection can begin. The study must be conducted strictly in accordance with the approved Stage 1 protocol. Any deviation, however minor, must be documented and disclosed in the Stage 2 manuscript.

How Should Deviations Be Handled?

Deviations are expected in long-running studies and are handled through a transparent disclosure process, not treated as failures. The critical requirement is that all deviations are documented promptly and reported honestly in Stage 2.

Guidance on managing deviations:

• Minor deviations (such as a typographic error in instructions corrected mid-data-collection): document in a deviation table in Stage 2 with a brief explanation.
• Moderate deviations (such as an additional exclusion criterion): document in Stage 2 and consider informing the editor.
• Substantial deviations (such as a change to equipment, materials, participant population, or inferential analysis): contact the editor immediately. The editor may consult Stage 1 reviewers and may require a protocol amendment.
• When in doubt, contact the editor proactively rather than risk Stage 2 rejection for an undisclosed deviation.

Deviations can also be documented in real time through a time-stamped open lab book (for example, hosted on the Open Science Framework), which provides a contemporaneous audit trail.

Writing the Stage 2 Manuscript

What Changes Between Stage 1 and Stage 2

The Stage 2 manuscript is built directly on the approved Stage 1. The introduction and methods sections are carried forward with only three permissible types of changes:

• Tense conversion: future tense (“we will recruit”) changes to past tense (“we recruited”)
• Factual corrections: errors discovered after IPA may be corrected with notation
• Footnoted additions: if genuinely essential new information must appear early in the paper, it may be added to the introduction as a clearly labeled footnote noting it is a deviation from the approved Stage 1

New literature published after IPA may be incorporated in the discussion section, not the introduction, because it did not motivate the original research.

Results Section Requirements

All confirmatory analyses pre-specified at Stage 1 must be reported in full in the results section, regardless of the direction or statistical significance of the results. Selectively omitting a pre-specified analysis in Stage 2 is a protocol violation.

• Report confirmatory analyses in the same order and labeling used in the Stage 1 protocol (H1, H2, etc.; Q1, Q2, etc.)
• Include all outcome-neutral checks and their results
• If a pre-specified analysis cannot be run due to a discovered flaw, note the omission explicitly and obtain editorial agreement before Stage 2 submission

Exploratory Analyses

Exploratory analyses are post-hoc, data-driven analyses not pre-specified in the Stage 1 protocol. They are permitted and encouraged in Registered Reports, but must be clearly distinguished from confirmatory analyses.

• Present all exploratory analyses in a dedicated section labeled “Exploratory Analyses”
• For each exploratory analysis: justify the choice, describe the method, and acknowledge its speculative status
• Do not present exploratory analyses as confirmatory, and do not adjust language to imply the analyses were pre-planned
• Exploratory findings generate hypotheses for future pre-registered studies; they do not constitute confirmation

Stage 2 Peer Review

Stage 2 is reviewed primarily for protocol adherence and for whether the conclusions drawn from the results are warranted. Reviewers at Stage 2 evaluate:

• Whether the data can test the approved hypotheses and satisfy the pre-specified outcome-neutral conditions
• Whether the introduction, hypotheses, and methods are the same as the approved Stage 1 submission
• Whether the authors adhered precisely to the registered procedures; if not, whether deviations are adequately disclosed and justified
• Whether any exploratory post-hoc analyses are methodologically sound, clearly labeled, and not presented as confirmatory
• Whether sufficient methodological detail is included for replication

Journals attempt to use the same reviewers for Stage 2 as Stage 1. When this is not possible, Stage 2 reviewers are provided with the approved Stage 1 manuscript to use as a reference for protocol compliance.

Stage 1 Development Checklist

The following checklist synthesizes the key requirements across multiple journal guidelines. Use it to verify that your Stage 1 submission is complete before sending.

Section	Item	Done?
Title Page	Title includes “Stage 1 Registered Report” label plus design, population, and intervention.
Title Page	All authors listed with full affiliations, email addresses, and corresponding author identified.
Abstract	Under 300 words; covers research question, outcomes, design, and expected contribution. No citations.
Introduction	Main research question stated and its importance explained.
Introduction	Relevant prior literature reviewed and competing theories described.
Introduction	All hypotheses listed, numbered (H1, H2, etc.), and linked to theoretical rationale.
Introduction	Primary and secondary outcomes distinguished and defined.
Introduction	Study is argued to be informative regardless of the outcome.
Introduction	Expected completion date and anticipated Stage 2 submission date provided.
Methods	Basic methodological framework stated and justified.
Methods	Unit of analysis defined (individual, organization, etc.).
Methods	Inclusion and exclusion criteria stated comprehensively, with order of application specified.
Methods	Intervention described in sufficient detail for replication (what, when, where, by whom, how).
Methods	Randomization and blinding strategies described.
Methods	Projected sample size with power calculation and effect size justification.
Methods	Stopping rule for data collection stated explicitly.
Methods	Data collection instruments, sources, and pre-processing steps described.
Methods	Attrition risks identified and mitigation strategies described.
Methods	Pilot data summarized (if applicable) with time-stamp noted.
Analysis Plan	Statistical method specified for each hypothesis with explicit H-to-test correspondence.
Analysis Plan	Statistical model provided in functional form.
Analysis Plan	Rules for missing data and outlier handling specified.
Analysis Plan	Multiple comparison correction strategy specified.
Analysis Plan	IF-THEN contingency statements included for any analysis depending on prior results.
Analysis Plan	Planned heterogeneous effects or subgroup analyses specified with justification.
Analysis Plan	Outcome-neutral checks (positive controls, manipulation checks, quality checks) pre-specified.
Analysis Plan	Design summary table included mapping Q to H to sampling plan to analysis to interpretation.
Administrative	Ethics approval obtained or application submitted; consent process described.
Administrative	For clinical trials: SPIRIT checklist completed; trial registration details included.
Administrative	For systematic reviews: PRISMA-P checklist completed; PROSPERO registration included.
Administrative	Funding sources listed with grant numbers and recipients.
Administrative	Competing interests declared for all authors.
Administrative	Data availability statement included.
Administrative	Study status confirmed: data collection not yet started.
Administrative	Software and code details provided with version numbers.
Administrative	Dissemination plan stated.

Registered Reports and Early-Career Researchers

Registered Reports are particularly well suited to early-career researchers (ECRs) and have been shown to be predominantly authored by this group. The IPA provides a concrete, citable output that can be added to a curriculum vitae before the study is complete, which is of direct value when applying for positions and grants. The format also provides structured mentorship through the Stage 1 review process, with reviewers evaluating and improving the design before it is implemented rather than critiquing it after the fact.

Additional benefits for ECRs include:

• Protection against the publish-or-perish pressure: publication is guaranteed regardless of results, removing the incentive to selectively report or overstate findings.
• Replication studies become viable: the format removes the risk of investing resources in a replication that might not be publishable due to negative results.
• The Stage 1 protocol functions as a fully developed research proposal that can support grant applications and ethical review.
• Feedback received before data collection is actionable; feedback received after a study has been run often cannot be addressed.

Secondary Registered Reports: Using Existing Data

Secondary Registered Reports use data that already exist at the time of submission. Because the researcher may have prior knowledge of the data, additional safeguards are required to prevent the analysis plan from being influenced by prior observation.

Bias control measures for secondary Registered Reports include:

• Demonstrating that the specific research question and hypotheses could not have been motivated by prior observation of the data.
• Restricting access to the full dataset until IPA is granted, for example by using a subset of the data for piloting.
• Using a data custodian or blind analyst to prevent the researcher from seeing outcome data before IPA.
• Providing a level-based taxonomy of bias control that documents the safeguards applied, based on the PCI RR guidance for existing-data submissions.

The analytical pipeline in a secondary Registered Report should be developed and tested using either a subset of the data (a pilot set), simulated data, or a different dataset. Any data seen prior to Stage 1 submission must be explicitly documented.

Registered Reports for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are well suited to the Registered Report format because they benefit from protocol peer review and IPA just as primary studies do. The pre-specified protocol ensures that search strategies, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction procedures, and planned synthesis methods are evaluated before the full review is conducted.

Key requirements for systematic review Registered Reports:

• The review protocol should be registered in PROSPERO prior to or alongside Stage 1 submission.
• The manuscript must follow PRISMA-P reporting guidelines, with a completed PRISMA-P checklist submitted as supplementary material.
• Pilot searches should be conducted and reported to demonstrate that the search strategy will yield a meaningful number of includable studies.
• All data extraction forms and coding schemes should be documented and, where possible, pilot-tested and included in supplementary materials.
• Where meta-analytic methods are planned, the statistical model (fixed-effects, random-effects, or network), heterogeneity measures, and sensitivity analyses must be pre-specified.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I still do exploratory analyses in a Registered Report if I find something unexpected?

Yes. Exploratory analyses are not only permitted but encouraged. The key requirement is that they are clearly labeled as exploratory in a dedicated section of the Stage 2 manuscript. Exploratory analyses should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating, not as confirmatory. They must not be written up in a way that implies they were pre-planned. This distinction preserves the scientific integrity of the confirmatory results while still allowing the data to be fully interrogated.

What happens if my study produces entirely null results?

Null results are published just as readily as positive findings under the Registered Report format. The IPA commits the journal to publication regardless of outcome. Provided you followed the Stage 1 protocol and pass the outcome-neutral checks, a null result is a legitimate and valuable scientific contribution. Many researchers have found that clearly negative results from well-powered Registered Reports have had significant impact because they are trusted: readers know the analysis was pre-specified and the study was not stopped early when results looked unfavorable.

What if a design flaw is discovered after in-principle acceptance but before data collection?

Contact the editor immediately. The editor will assess whether the deviation is minor (requires only transparent disclosure in Stage 2), moderate (requires editorial approval), or substantial (requires a protocol amendment that may be treated as an incremental registration, effectively adding a corrected study to the approved submission). Trying to hide a design flaw or proceeding silently with a changed protocol is the main risk to Stage 2 publication. Transparency and proactive communication with the editor are always the correct course of action.

Is a Registered Report the same as pre-registration on the Open Science Framework?

No, though they are related. Pre-registration on the Open Science Framework or a similar registry is the practice of publicly posting your hypotheses and analysis plan before collecting data. It is a useful transparency measure but does not involve peer review of the protocol or a publication commitment. A Registered Report adds two critical elements that plain pre-registration does not: expert peer review of the study design before it is run, and an in-principle acceptance that guarantees publication regardless of results. The Registered Report format is therefore a more rigorous and formally recognized structure.

How long does the entire process typically take?

The timeline varies significantly by journal and discipline, but a rough estimate: Stage 1 review typically takes two to four months including revisions. Data collection can range from weeks to years depending on the study. Stage 2 review typically takes two to three months. In total, from Stage 1 submission to final publication, researchers should plan for one to three years for studies with non-trivial data collection timelines. Some journals allow rolling submissions and have faster turnaround; checking the journal’s specific guidelines and asking the editor about typical timelines during a pre-submission inquiry is advisable.

What if I want to study a fast-moving topic where the literature changes quickly?

This is a real challenge for Registered Reports and is discussed in the open science community. The key mitigation is that new literature published after IPA can be incorporated into the Stage 2 discussion, not the introduction. For very fast-moving areas, some authors also include a brief note in the Stage 1 introduction acknowledging the pace of the field and specifying that any new findings will be addressed in the Stage 2 discussion. PCI RR and some journals also allow minor updates to the introduction as noted footnoted deviations where the new information is essential context.

Can I submit a Registered Report if my institution does not yet widely recognize the format?

Yes. Because an IPA appears on your curriculum vitae as a concrete output with a date and journal name, it is increasingly recognized as equivalent to an accepted manuscript for the purposes of job applications and grants. It is worth explaining the format proactively in cover letters and grant narratives. The majority of published Registered Reports are in fact authored by early-career researchers, which suggests that many are navigating this recognition issue successfully. Institutional recognition of the format is growing as the number of journals offering it exceeds 300 and as meta-scientific evidence of improved research quality accumulates.

Do I have to share my data openly to submit a Registered Report?

Most journals that offer Registered Reports require open data sharing as a condition of Stage 2 publication. However, exemptions exist for datasets with genuine confidentiality or legal restrictions, such as sensitive health records or data collected under conditions that prevent public sharing. In those cases, authors must clearly explain why the data cannot be shared and describe what access is available, for example through a data access committee or controlled-access repository. The key principle is that the commitment to openness must be maximized to the extent permitted by the constraints of the dataset. Pilot data must in any case be time-stamped and publicly posted.

References

1. Henderson, E. L., and Chambers, C. D. (2022). Ten simple rules for writing a Registered Report. PLOS Computational Biology, 18(10), e1010571.
2. F1000Research. (2020). Registered Reports: Study Protocol (Stage 1) submission template. F1000Research.
3. ASHA Journals Academy. (2023). Registered Report: Stage 1 Development Checklist. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
4. The Turing Way Community. (2022). Registered Reports. In The Turing Way: A Handbook for Reproducible, Ethical and Collaborative Research.
5. Baldwin, J. R., and Larsson, H. (2024). Implementing open science and reproducible research practices in mental health research through registered reports. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Advances.
6. Chambers, C. D., and Tzavella, L. (2022). The past, present and future of Registered Reports. Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 29-42.