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.

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.

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.

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.

Everyday circumstances require efficient updating of behavior. Brain systems in the right inferior frontal cortex have been identified as critical for some aspects of behavioral updating, such as stopping actions. However, the precise role of these neural systems is controversial. Here we examined how the inferior frontal cortex updates behavior by combining reversible cortical interference (transcranial magnetic stimulation) with an experimental task that measures different types of updating. We found that the right inferior frontal cortex can be functionally segregated into two subregions: a dorsal region, which is critical for visual detection of changes in the environment, and a ventral region, which updates the corresponding action plan. This dissociation reconciles competing accounts of prefrontal organization and casts light on the neural architecture of human cognitive control.

Less supervision by the executive system after disruption of the right prefrontal cortex leads to increased risk taking in gambling because superficially attractive—but risky—choices are not suppressed. Similarly, people might gamble more in multitask situations than in single-task situations because concurrent executive processes usually interfere with each other. In the study reported here, we used a novel monetary decision-making paradigm to investigate whether multitasking could reduce rather than increase risk taking in gambling. We found that performing a task that induced cautious motor responding reduced gambling in a multitask situation (Experiment 1). We then found that a short period of inhibitory training lessened risk taking in gambling at least 2 hr later (Experiments 2 and 3). Our findings indicate that proactive motor control strongly affects monetary risk taking in gambling. The link between control systems at different cognitive levels might be exploited to develop new methods for rehabilitation of addiction and impulse-control disorders.

Is motor response inhibition supported by a specialised neuronal inhibitory control mechanism, or by a more general system of action updating? This pre-registered study employed a context-cueing paradigm requiring both inhibitory and non-inhibitory action updating in combination with functional magnetic resonance imaging to test the specificity of responses under different updating conditions, including the cancellation of actions. Cortical regions of activity were found to be common to multiple forms of action updating. However, functional specificity during response inhibition was observed in the anterior right inferior frontal gyrus. In addition, fronto-subcortical activity was explored using a novel contrast method. These exploratory results indicate that the specificity for response inhibition observed in right prefrontal cortex continued downstream and was observed in right hemisphere subcortical activity, while left hemisphere activity was associated with right-hand response execution. Overall, our findings reveal both common and distinct correlates of response inhibition in prefrontal cortex, with exploratory analyses supporting putative models of subcortical pathways and extending them through the demonstration of lateralisation. •Anterior specificity in cortical activity to response inhibition was identified.•Methodological development of a compound contrast methodology optimising data usage.•Exploratory demonstration of lateralised subcortical action control pathways.

Following parietal damage most patients with visual neglect bisect horizontal lines significantly away from the true centre. Neurologically intact individuals also misbisect lines; a phenomenon referred to as 'pseudoneglect'. In this study we examined the relationship between neglect and pseudoneglect by testing how patterns of pre-existing visuospatial asymmetry predict asymmetry caused by parietal interference. Twenty-four participants completed line bisection and Landmark tasks before receiving continuous theta burst stimulation to the left or right angular gyrus. Results showed that a pre-existing pattern of left pseudoneglect (i.e. right bias), but not right pseudoneglect, predicts left neglect-like behaviour during line bisection following right parietal cTBS. This correlation is consistent with the view that neglect and pseudoneglect arise via a common or linked neural mechanism.

Background Misleading news claims can be detrimental to public health. We aimed to improve the alignment between causal claims and evidence, without losing news interest (counter to assumptions that news is not interested in communicating caution). Methods We tested two interventions in press releases, which are the main sources for science and health news: (a) aligning the headlines and main causal claims with the underlying evidence (strong for experimental, cautious for correlational) and (b) inserting explicit statements/caveats about inferring causality. The ‘participants’ were press releases on health-related topics ( N  = 312; control = 89, claim alignment = 64, causality statement = 79, both = 80) from nine press offices (journals, universities, funders). Outcomes were news content (headlines, causal claims, caveats) in English-language international and national media (newspapers, websites, broadcast; N  = 2257), news uptake (% press releases gaining news coverage) and feasibility (% press releases implementing cautious statements). Results News headlines showed better alignment to evidence when press releases were aligned (intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) 56% vs 52%, OR = 1.2 to 1.9; as-treated analysis (AT) 60% vs 32%, OR = 1.3 to 4.4). News claims also followed press releases, significant only for AT (ITT 62% vs 60%, OR = 0.7 to 1.6; AT, 67% vs 39%, OR = 1.4 to 5.7). The same was true for causality statements/caveats (ITT 15% vs 10%, OR = 0.9 to 2.6; AT 20% vs 0%, OR 16 to 156). There was no evidence of lost news uptake for press releases with aligned headlines and claims (ITT 55% vs 55%, OR = 0.7 to 1.3, AT 58% vs 60%, OR = 0.7 to 1.7), or causality statements/caveats (ITT 53% vs 56%, OR = 0.8 to 1.0, AT 66% vs 52%, OR = 1.3 to 2.7). Feasibility was demonstrated by a spontaneous increase in cautious headlines, claims and caveats in press releases compared to the pre-trial period (OR = 1.01 to 2.6, 1.3 to 3.4, 1.1 to 26, respectively). Conclusions News claims—even headlines—can become better aligned with evidence. Cautious claims and explicit caveats about correlational findings may penetrate into news without harming news interest. Findings from AT analysis are correlational and may not imply cause, although here the linking mechanism between press releases and news is known. ITT analysis was insensitive due to spontaneous adoption of interventions across conditions. Trial registration ISRCTN10492618 (20 August 2015)