Brian Nosek

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.

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.

But we're going to review based on, do you have an important question?

But we're going to review based on, do you have an important question?

But we're going to review based on, do you have an important question?

Exactly. And the key part is that the reward, me getting that publication, is based on you agreeing that I'm asking an important question and I've designed an effective method to test it. It's no longer about the results. None of us know what the results are.

Exactly. And the key part is that the reward, me getting that publication, is based on you agreeing that I'm asking an important question and I've designed an effective method to test it. It's no longer about the results. None of us know what the results are.

Exactly. And the key part is that the reward, me getting that publication, is based on you agreeing that I'm asking an important question and I've designed an effective method to test it. It's no longer about the results. None of us know what the results are.

Yeah, so the commitment that the journal makes is we're going to publish it regardless of outcome, and the authors are making that commitment too. We're going to carry this out as we said we would, and we'll report what happens.

Yeah, so the commitment that the journal makes is we're going to publish it regardless of outcome, and the authors are making that commitment too. We're going to carry this out as we said we would, and we'll report what happens.

Yeah, so the commitment that the journal makes is we're going to publish it regardless of outcome, and the authors are making that commitment too. We're going to carry this out as we said we would, and we'll report what happens.

Now, an interesting thing happens in the change of the culture here in evaluating research because you said, well, if it's an uninteresting finding, do we still have to publish it? It turns out that when you have to make a decision of whether to publish or not before knowing that the results are –

Now, an interesting thing happens in the change of the culture here in evaluating research because you said, well, if it's an uninteresting finding, do we still have to publish it? It turns out that when you have to make a decision of whether to publish or not before knowing that the results are –

Now, an interesting thing happens in the change of the culture here in evaluating research because you said, well, if it's an uninteresting finding, do we still have to publish it? It turns out that when you have to make a decision of whether to publish or not before knowing that the results are –

The orientation that the reviewers bring, that the authors bring, is do we need to know the answer to this? Regardless of what happens, do we need to know the answer? Is the question important, in other words? Exactly. Is the question important enough that we need evidence, regardless of what the evidence is? And it dramatically shifts what ends up being published.

The orientation that the reviewers bring, that the authors bring, is do we need to know the answer to this? Regardless of what happens, do we need to know the answer? Is the question important, in other words? Exactly. Is the question important enough that we need evidence, regardless of what the evidence is? And it dramatically shifts what ends up being published.

The orientation that the reviewers bring, that the authors bring, is do we need to know the answer to this? Regardless of what happens, do we need to know the answer? Is the question important, in other words? Exactly. Is the question important enough that we need evidence, regardless of what the evidence is? And it dramatically shifts what ends up being published.

So in the early evidence with registered reports, more than half of the hypotheses that are proposed end up not being supported in the final paper. In the standard literature, comparable type of domains, more than 95% of the hypotheses are supported in the paper. You wonder in the standard literature, if we're always right, why do we bother doing the research, right?

So in the early evidence with registered reports, more than half of the hypotheses that are proposed end up not being supported in the final paper. In the standard literature, comparable type of domains, more than 95% of the hypotheses are supported in the paper. You wonder in the standard literature, if we're always right, why do we bother doing the research, right?

So in the early evidence with registered reports, more than half of the hypotheses that are proposed end up not being supported in the final paper. In the standard literature, comparable type of domains, more than 95% of the hypotheses are supported in the paper. You wonder in the standard literature, if we're always right, why do we bother doing the research, right?