---
title: "Preregistration (science)"
chunk: 4/4
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preregistration_(science)"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:50:00.803493+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

=== Practical Implementation ===
There are also concerns about the practical implementation of preregistration. Many preregistered protocols leave plenty of room for p-hacking (Bakker et al., 2020; Heirene et al., 2021; Ikeda et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2021; Van den Akker et al., 2023), and researchers rarely follow the exact research methods and analyses that they preregister (Abrams et al., 2020; Claesen et al., 2019; Heirene et al., 2021; Clayson et al., 2025; see also Boghdadly et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2019). In terms of credibility, pre-registered studies are only of higher quality than non-pre-registered studies if the former has a power analysis and higher sample size than the latter but other than that they do not seem to prevent p-hacking and HARKing, as both the proportion of positive results and effect sizes are similar between preregistered and non-preregistered studies  (Van den Akker et al., 2023). In terms of adherence, a study of 92 EEG/ERP studies showed that only 60% of studies adhered to their preregistrations or disclosed all deviations. Notably, registered reports had the higher adherence rates (92%) than unreviewed preregistrations (60%). In general, around three-quarters of preregistered studies included at least one deviation (Rubin, 2025, p. 19).  Hence, in many cases, what were intended as preregistered confirmatory tests end up as unplanned exploratory tests.
Again, preregistration advocates argue that deviations from preregistered plans are acceptable as long as they are reported transparently and justified. They also point out that even vague preregistrations help to reduce researcher degrees of freedom and make any residual flexibility transparent (Simmons et al., 2021, p. 180). However, critics argue that it is not useful to identify or justify deviations from preregistered plans when those plans do not reflect high quality theory and research practice. As Rubin (2020) explained, "we should be more interested in the rationale for the current method and analyses than in the rationale for historical changes that have led up to the current method and analyses" (pp. 378–379).
In addition, pre-registering a study requires careful deliberation about the study's hypotheses, research design and statistical analyses. This depends on the use of pre-registration templates that provides detailed guidance on what to include and why (Bowman et al., 2016; Haven & Van Grootel, 2019; Van den Akker et al., 2021). Many pre-registration template stress the importance of a power analysis but not only stress the importance of why the methodology was used.
Finally, there are concerns about the additional workload involved in preregistering studies. It takes time for researchers to prepare preregistrations (Hostler, 2023), and it takes time for reviewers to cross-reference preregistrations with final research reports to identify any unreported deviations. Indeed, there is evidence that editors and reviewers do not check preregistrations during the review process (Syed, 2025).

=== Qualitative Research ===
Critics have also argued that preregistration is less applicable, or even unsuitable, for qualitative research. Pre-registration imposes rigidity, limiting researchers' ability to adapt to emerging data and evolving contexts, which are essential to capturing the richness of participants' lived experiences (Souza-Neto & Moyle, 2025). Additionally, it conflicts with the inductive and flexible nature of theory-building in qualitative research, constraining the exploratory approach that is central to this methodology (Souza-Neto & Moyle, 2025).

=== Detrimental Effects ===
Some commentators have argued that, under some circumstances, preregistration may actually harm science by providing a false sense of credibility to research studies and analyses (Devezer et al., 2020; McPhetres, 2020; Pham & Oh, 2020; Rubin & Donkin, 2024; Szollosi et al., 2020). Consistent with this view, there is some evidence that researchers view registered reports as being more credible than standard reports on a range of dimensions (Soderberg et al., 2020; see also Field et al., 2020 for inconclusive evidence), although it is unclear whether this represents a "false" sense of credibility due to pre-existing positive community attitudes about preregistration or a genuine causal effect of registered reports on quality of research.

== See also ==
AllTrials
Clinical trial registration
Metascience
Open science

== References ==

== External links ==

Preregistration resources from the Centre for Open Science
Guidelines for creating registered reports by the Center for Open Science
As Predicted