Does preregistration improve the credibility of research findings?
Mark Rubin · 2020 · arXiv
WASTE classifies this as Negative / Null Result Report · AI classification, approximate
The study found no significant effect — useful as a negative control or null benchmark for your own design.
Abstract (excerpt)
Preregistration entails researchers registering their planned research hypotheses, methods, and analyses in a time-stamped document before they undertake their data collection and analyses. This document is then made available with the published research report to allow readers to identify discrepancies between what the researchers originally planned to do and what they actually ended up doing. This historical transparency is supposed to facilitate judgments about the credibility of the research findings. The present article provides a critical review of 17 of the reasons behind this argument.
Excerpt shown for reference under fair use — read the full paper at the publisher.
About to run something similar?
Run an AI Precheck on your own design to catch failure modes like this one before you spend the time. Your first desk check is free.
Related failures
Channeling Fisher: Randomization Tests and the Statistical Insignificance of Seemingly Significant Experimental Results*
Negative / Null Result ReportThe harmonic mean p -value for combining dependent tests
Negative / Null Result ReportGeneralizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples
Negative / Null Result ReportNumerical predictors of arithmetic success in grades 1–6
Negative / Null Result ReportMethods Matter: p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Causal Analysis in Economics
Negative / Null Result ReportShould multiple imputation be the method of choice for handling missing data in randomized trials?
WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.
Metadata source: arXiv