Explore the vast range of titles available.

Registered Reports are a form of empirical publication in which study proposals are peer reviewed and pre-accepted before research is undertaken. By deciding which articles are published based on the question, theory and methods, Registered Reports offer a remedy for a range of reporting and publication biases. Here, we reflect on the history, progress and future prospects of the Registered Reports initiative and offer practical guidance for authors, reviewers and editors. We review early evidence that Registered Reports are working as intended, while at the same time acknowledging that they are not a universal solution for irreproducibility. We also consider how the policies and practices surrounding Registered Reports are changing, or must change in the future, to address limitations and adapt to new challenges. We conclude that Registered Reports are promoting reproducibility, transparency and self-correction across disciplines and may help reshape how society evaluates research and researchers.Registered Reports were introduced a decade ago as a means for improving the rigour and credibility of confirmatory research. Chambers and Tzavella overview the format’s past, its current status and future developments.

Introduction Registered Reports are an increasingly popular publishing format that is currently offered in more than 300 journals. Because the process of writing and submitting a Registered Report is different to that of standard manuscripts, we felt it important to create this “10 Simple Rules” guide for writing a more open and useful manuscript. [...]this format not only alleviates the aforementioned biases, but also the stress on researchers navigating their way through a “publish or perish” culture. Protocols for research synthesis studies are often publicly registered, but the Registered Reports format has the added benefits of protocol peer review and in-principle acceptance (e.g., systematic review and meta-analysis: [7]; systematic map: [8]). In terms of soundness, you should consider design features that maximise the rigour and informativeness of your study (regardless of outcome) such as sample size, blinding, randomisation, participant recruitment criteria, prespecification and justification of inclusion and exclusion criteria, validity (see [13]), generalisability (see [14]), and outcome-neutral checks (also known as “control checks,” “positive controls,” “manipulation checks,” “tests of intervention fidelity,” or “sanity checks”) that confirm that the study is sufficiently well designed to be capable of answering the research questions.

Experimental economists currently lack a convention for how to pay subjects in experiments with multiple tasks. We provide a theoretical framework for analyzing this question. Assuming statewise monotonicity and nothing else, we prove that paying for one randomly chosen problem—the random problem selection mechanism—is essentially the only incentive compatible mechanism. Paying for every period is similarly justified when we assume only a “no complementarities at the top” condition. To help experimenters decide which is appropriate for their particular experiment, we discuss empirical tests of these two assumptions.

Exaggerated or simplistic news is often blamed for adversely influencing public health. However, recent findings suggested many exaggerations were already present in university press releases, which scientists approve. Surprisingly, these exaggerations were not associated with more news coverage. Here we test whether these two controversial results also arise in press releases from prominent science and medical journals. We then investigate the influence of mitigating caveats in press releases, to test assumptions that caveats harm news interest or are ignored. Using quantitative content analysis, we analyzed press releases (N = 534) on biomedical and health-related science issued by leading peer-reviewed journals. We similarly analysed the associated peer-reviewed papers (N = 534) and news stories (N = 582). Main outcome measures were advice to readers and causal statements drawn from correlational research. Exaggerations in press releases predicted exaggerations in news (odds ratios 2.4 and 10.9, 95% CIs 1.3 to 4.5 and 3.9 to 30.1) but were not associated with increased news coverage, consistent with previous findings. Combining datasets from universities and journals (996 press releases, 1250 news), we found that when caveats appeared in press releases there was no reduction in journalistic uptake, but there was a clear increase in caveats in news (odds ratios 9.6 and 9.5 for caveats for advice and causal claims, CIs 4.1 to 24.3 and 6.0 to 15.2). The main study limitation is its retrospective correlational nature. For health and science news directly inspired by press releases, the main source of both exaggerations and caveats appears to be the press release itself. However we find no evidence that exaggerations increase, or caveats decrease, the likelihood of news coverage. These findings should be encouraging for press officers and scientists who wish to minimise exaggeration and include caveats in their press releases.

We study the problem of resolving conflicting discount rates via a social choice approach. We introduce several axioms, seeking to capture the tension between allowing for intergenerational comparisons of utility, and imposing intergenerational fairness. Depending on which axioms are judged appropriate, we are led to one of several conclusions: a utilitarian, maxmin, or a multi-utilitarian rule, whereby a utility stream i judged by the worst in a set of utilitarian weighting schemes across discount rates.

The stop-signal paradigm is a popular method for examining response inhibition and impulse control in psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and clinical domains because it allows the estimation of the covert latency of the stop process: the stop-signal reaction time (SSRT). In three sets of simulations, we examined to what extent SSRTs that were estimated with the popular mean and integration methods were influenced by the skew of the reaction time distribution and the gradual slowing of the response latencies. We found that the mean method consistently overestimated SSRT. The integration method tended to underestimate SSRT when response latencies gradually increased. This underestimation bias was absent when SSRTs were estimated with the integration method for smaller blocks of trials. Thus, skewing and response slowing can lead to spurious inhibitory differences. We recommend that the mean method of estimating SSRT be abandoned in favor of the integration method.

Prestigious scientific journals traditionally decide which articles to accept at least partially based on the results of research. This backloaded selectivity enforces publication bias and encourages authors to selectively report their most persuasive findings, even when they are misleading, biased, and unreliable. One answer to backloaded selectivity is to curtail editorial selectivity altogether, deciding publication on the basis of technical merit alone. However, this strategy is unlikely to win appeal among highly selective journals. A third way is to frontload selectivity-reaching editorial decisions based on rigorous evaluation of the research question and methodology but before the research is conducted and thus regardless of the eventual results. This model, now offered at PLOS Biology in the form of \"Preregistered Research Articles\" (or Registered Reports), allows a scientific journal to maintain high selectivity for the importance and rigor of research while simultaneously eliminating outcome bias by editors, reviewers, and authors. I believe the rise of Registered Reports among selective journals will change how research is evaluated and may trigger the realization that frontloaded selectivity is the most secure way of advancing knowledge.

The flanking regions of Guaymas Basin, a young marginal rift basin located in the Gulf of California, are covered with thick sediment layers that are hydrothermally altered due to magmatic intrusions. To explore environmental controls on microbial community structure in this complex environment, we analyzed site- and depth-related patterns of microbial community composition (bacteria, archaea, and fungi) in hydrothermally influenced sediments with different thermal conditions, geochemical regimes, and extent of microbial mats. We compared communities in hot hydrothermal sediments (75-100°C at ~40 cm depth) covered by orange-pigmented Beggiatoaceae mats in the Cathedral Hill area, temperate sediments (25-30°C at ~40 cm depth) covered by yellow sulfur precipitates and filamentous sulfur oxidizers at the Aceto Balsamico location, hot sediments (>115°C at ~40 cm depth) with orange-pigmented mats surrounded by yellow and white mats at the Marker 14 location, and background, non-hydrothermal sediments (3.8°C at ~45 cm depth) overlain with ambient seawater. Whereas bacterial and archaeal communities are clearly structured by site-specific in-situ thermal gradients and geochemical conditions, fungal communities are generally structured by sediment depth. Unexpectedly, chytrid sequence biosignatures are ubiquitous in surficial sediments whereas deeper sediments contain diverse yeasts and filamentous fungi. In correlation analyses across different sites and sediment depths, fungal phylotypes correlate to each other to a much greater degree than Bacteria and Archaea do to each other or to fungi, further substantiating that site-specific in-situ thermal gradients and geochemical conditions that control bacteria and archaea do not extend to fungi.

We conduct extended versions of the ISMIP6 future climate experiments for the Greenland ice sheet until the year 3000 with the model SICOPOLIS. Beyond 2100, the climate forcing is kept fixed at late-21st-century conditions. For the unabated warming pathway RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5, the ice sheet suffers a severe mass loss, which amounts to ~ 1.8 m SLE (sea-level equivalent) for the 12-experiment mean, and ~ 3.5 m SLE (~ 50% of the entire mass) for the most sensitive experiment. For the reduced emissions pathway RCP2.6/SSP1-2.6, the mass loss is limited to a two-experiment mean of ~ 0.28 m SLE. Climate-change mitigation during the next decades will therefore be an efficient means for limiting the contribution of the Greenland ice sheet to sea-level rise in the long term.

Improving the reliability and efficiency of scientific research will increase the credibility of the published scientific literature and accelerate discovery. Here we argue for the adoption of measures to optimize key elements of the scientific process: methods, reporting and dissemination, reproducibility, evaluation and incentives. There is some evidence from both simulations and empirical studies supporting the likely effectiveness of these measures, but their broad adoption by researchers, institutions, funders and journals will require iterative evaluation and improvement. We discuss the goals of these measures, and how they can be implemented, in the hope that this will facilitate action toward improving the transparency, reproducibility and efficiency of scientific research. Leading voices in the reproducibility landscape call for the adoption of measures to optimize key elements of the scientific process.