Brian Nosek

Yeah, so the idea is you register your designs and you've made that commitment in advance. And then as you're carrying out the research, if things change along the way, which happens all the time, you can update that registration. You can say, here's what's changing. We didn't anticipate that going into this community was going to be so hard and here's how we had to adapt. That's fine.

You should be able to change. You just have to be transparent about those changes so that the reader can evaluate. And then those data are timestamped together? Exactly. Yeah. You put your data and your materials. If you did a survey, you add the surveys. If you did behavioral tasks, you can add those.

You should be able to change. You just have to be transparent about those changes so that the reader can evaluate. And then those data are timestamped together? Exactly. Yeah. You put your data and your materials. If you did a survey, you add the surveys. If you did behavioral tasks, you can add those.

You should be able to change. You just have to be transparent about those changes so that the reader can evaluate. And then those data are timestamped together? Exactly. Yeah. You put your data and your materials. If you did a survey, you add the surveys. If you did behavioral tasks, you can add those.

So all of that stuff can be attached then to the registration so that you have a more comprehensive record of what it is you did.

So all of that stuff can be attached then to the registration so that you have a more comprehensive record of what it is you did.

So all of that stuff can be attached then to the registration so that you have a more comprehensive record of what it is you did.

It makes fraud more inconvenient. And that's actually a reasonable intervention. I don't think any intervention that we could design could prevent fraud in a way that doesn't stifle actual legitimate research. We just want to make visible all the things that legitimate researchers are doing so that someone that doesn't want to do that extra work has a harder time.

It makes fraud more inconvenient. And that's actually a reasonable intervention. I don't think any intervention that we could design could prevent fraud in a way that doesn't stifle actual legitimate research. We just want to make visible all the things that legitimate researchers are doing so that someone that doesn't want to do that extra work has a harder time.

It makes fraud more inconvenient. And that's actually a reasonable intervention. I don't think any intervention that we could design could prevent fraud in a way that doesn't stifle actual legitimate research. We just want to make visible all the things that legitimate researchers are doing so that someone that doesn't want to do that extra work has a harder time.

And eventually, if everything is exposed, then the person who would be motivated to do fraud might say, well, it's just as easy to do the research the real way. So I guess I'll do that.

And eventually, if everything is exposed, then the person who would be motivated to do fraud might say, well, it's just as easy to do the research the real way. So I guess I'll do that.

And eventually, if everything is exposed, then the person who would be motivated to do fraud might say, well, it's just as easy to do the research the real way. So I guess I'll do that.

So in the standard publishing model, I do all of my research. I get my findings. I write it up in a paper and I send it to the journal. In that model, the reward system is about the findings. I need to get those findings to be as positive, novel, and tidy as I can so that you, the reviewer, say, OK, OK, you can publish it.

So in the standard publishing model, I do all of my research. I get my findings. I write it up in a paper and I send it to the journal. In that model, the reward system is about the findings. I need to get those findings to be as positive, novel, and tidy as I can so that you, the reviewer, say, OK, OK, you can publish it.

So in the standard publishing model, I do all of my research. I get my findings. I write it up in a paper and I send it to the journal. In that model, the reward system is about the findings. I need to get those findings to be as positive, novel, and tidy as I can so that you, the reviewer, say, OK, OK, you can publish it.

That's dysfunctional and it leads to all of those practices that might lead the claims to be more exaggerated than the evidence.

That's dysfunctional and it leads to all of those practices that might lead the claims to be more exaggerated than the evidence.

That's dysfunctional and it leads to all of those practices that might lead the claims to be more exaggerated than the evidence.

The registered report model says to the journal, you are going to submit, Brian, the methodology that you're thinking about doing and why you're asking that question and the background research supporting that question being important and that methodology being effective methodology. We'll review that. We don't know what the results are. You don't know what the results are.