Abstract
Improving the usability of psychological research has been encouraged through practices such as prospectively registering research plans. Registering research aligns with the open-science movement, as the registration of research protocols in publicly accessible domains can result in reduced research waste and increased study transparency. In medicine and psychology, two different terms, registration and preregistration, have been used to refer to study registration, but applying inconsistent terminology to represent one concept can complicate both educational outreach and epidemiological investigation. Consistently using one term across disciplines to refer to the concept of study registration may improve the understanding and uptake of this practice, thereby supporting the movement toward improving the reliability and reproducibility of research through study registration. We recommend encouraging use of the original term, registration, given its widespread and long-standing use, including in national registries.
There are important threats to conducting meaningful and reproducible science (Nosek, Ebersole, DeHaven, & Mellor, 2018). For example, hypothesizing after results are known (HARKing; Kerr, 1998) and duplicative efforts among researchers (Altman & Moher, 2013; Chalmers & Glasziou, 2009) contribute to ongoing research waste and limit understanding of the effectiveness of psychological interventions. Growing awareness of suboptimal research practices has resulted in efforts to enhance the credibility and replicability of research (Booth et al., 2012; Nosek et al., 2018; Zarin, Tse, Williams, & Rajakannan, 2017). The registration of randomized controlled trials has been described as the single most valuable tool to ensure unbiased reporting (Weber, Merino, & Loder, 2015). Registering trials and systematic reviews (not conducting). Systematic reviews are associated with improved study reporting (Reveiz et al., 2010) and increased review quality (Sideri, Papageorgiou, & Eliades, 2018), respectively. In addition, registering trials and making protocols accessible facilitate the detection of selective reporting of outcomes (Calmejane, Dechartres, Tran, & Ravaud, 2018).
Registering research involves developing a study protocol and archiving it in an online public registry, such as ClinialTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/) or the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/), before conducting the study. Registered protocols include a minimum set of information (e.g., primary outcomes, analysis plans) and can allow readers to differentiate between aspects of research that are planned and those that are exploratory. The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT; Chan et al., 2013) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P; Moher et al., 2015) are reporting guidelines that can facilitate complete and transparent reporting of protocols. Prospectively registering clinical trials is legally required in the United States and European Union, and registration is necessary to publish in journals that adhere to the policy of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE; De Angelis et al., 2005). The movement toward registering studies has been supported by many disciplines with varying success. Identifying opportunities to improve the uptake of this research initiative and maximizing its reach can help to ensure that study registration is implemented and endorsed consistently.
Currently, researchers new to the concept of study registration face inconsistent terminology, which may complicate their understanding of this practice. The terms registration (Dickersin, 2003) and preregistration (Nosek et al., 2018) are used inconsistently, and the intended distinction between the two terms is largely unknown. The Registered Reports initiative can further muddy the terminology (Chambers, 2013). Having one term that refers to a time-stamped, publicly accessible research protocol and associated research plans is important to expand the practice of study registration in support of the open-science movement.
The History of Research Registration in Medicine
Trial registers have existed since at least the 1960s (Levine, Guy, & Cleary, 1974). In the mid-1980s they were recommended by research advocates as a way to reduce publication bias in cancer research (Simes, 1986). Since 2000, numerous committees, journal editors, and expert panels have recommended registration, although no single effort was implemented long term (Dickersin, 2003). The passage of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act in 1997 led to the establishment of ClinicalTrials.gov in 2000 (McCray, 2000). In 2004, efforts to enforce trial registration became prominent as the New York State Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer, prosecuted GlaxoSmithKline for withholding information about the harms of paroxetine (Steinbrook, 2004) and the ICMJE created a policy requiring trials to be registered (De Angelis et al., 2005). Implementation of trial-registration policies expanded over the next decade with ongoing support from members of the biomedical research community, including medical research councils and editors of biomedical journals, who have been strong proponents for study registration (Weber et al., 2015; Zarin et al., 2017).
Psychology’s Endorsement of Registration
In the past 5 years, many researchers in psychology and many psychology journals have strongly supported study registration—which they termed preregistration—to improve the credibility and replicability of psychology research (Nosek et al., 2018). In the field of psychology, this term refers to registering research plans in a time-stamped, online repository before collecting data; it aligns with the understanding of registration in the field of medicine. This varying terminology may unnecessarily complicate the concept, given that registration and preregistration have been used interchangeably for almost a decade. Lash and Vandenbroucke published joint and individually authored articles noting that the concept of preregistration, which was proposed in a working group organized by the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals, was ill-founded (e.g., Lash, 2010; Lash & Vandenbroucke, 2012; Vandenbroucke, 2010). The working group, however, had encouraged the registration, rather than preregistration of observational studies (European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals, 2009).
Psychology journals (e.g., Cortex) have been the principal adopters of Registered Reports (Chambers, 2013). Descriptions of this report format have been similar to descriptions of registration and preregistration; however, the Registered Report format builds on the concept of study registration by offering a path to publication of a completed study in a journal regardless of the results’ statistical significance (Chambers, 2013). Researchers register their study and submit their protocol to a journal for peer review and then may be granted in-principle acceptance for publication before the study has been conducted. Although Registered Report and study registration do not refer to exactly the same concept, they are sometimes confused. For example, a student-authored article in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Science Agenda described the promise of the Registered Report procedure but referred to it using the term preregistration (Gonzales & Cunningham, 2015).
Aligning Terminology
Preregistration and registration have represented the same practice among many psychological and medical researchers who want to encourage (a) prospective study registration on platforms such as the OSF and ClinicalTrials.gov and (b) best-practice approaches to research. In a previous study, trialists reported that a lack of knowledge about registration of studies was the main reason they did not register their study (Reveiz et al., 2010). Varying terminology could exacerbate this problem, complicating outreach intended to explain how to register studies and why doing so is important. It could also complicate epidemiological investigation of the practice by, for example, leading to inaccurate data on rates of registration or complicating search terms for relevant publications. Using consistent language to refer to study registration may improve researchers’ understanding of the concept and facilitate their uptake of the practice. We recommend encouraging the use of the single term registration across disciplines, given its widespread and long-standing use, including its current use in all 15 registries supported by the World Health Organization (n.d.) and in reporting guidelines in medicine (e.g., SPIRIT) and psychology (e.g., APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards, 2008). Consistent application of this term to refer to the practice of archiving study plans in a registry will facilitate psychology’s movement toward improving the reliability and reproducibility of research.
