Nothing To Hide, Just Registered Reporting.
Open Research objectives/practices
-
Making the outputs of research freely available.
-
Increasing the transparency of research processes and methodologies.
-
Using alternative models of publication and peer review.
Introduction
In 2025, I published a research paper in Cortex (Vilotijevic & Mathôt, 2025) using the Registered Report format. This format requires submitting the research question, theoretical rationale, and a detailed methodology and statistical analysis plan for Stage 1 peer review before data collection begins. Only after receiving in-principle acceptance and incorporating the reviewers’ feedback did I proceed to collect and analyze the data according to the preregistered plan. The final manuscript was then submitted for Stage 2 review, which focused solely on adherence to the approved protocol and the clarity of reporting. Upon passing Stage 2 review, the paper was published. This approach ensured that the scientific merit of the work was evaluated independently of the results, and that all steps of the research process— preregistration, reviews, data, experimental files, analysis scripts—were transparent and publicly available. The study features Open Data, Open Materials and Preregistration practices.
Motivation
I chose to publish through the Registered Report format because I believe it embodies the core values of open and transparent science. By having the study plan peer-reviewed before data collection, the quality of the design and analysis plan is strengthened through expert feedback at the earliest stage. At the same time, this format removes publication bias and selective reporting, because publication is guaranteed based on the research idea’s value and methodological rigor, and not depending on whether the results are positive, null, or even contrary to expectations, which is exactly how I think science should function. I am convinced that this model promotes more rigorous, reproducible, and trustworthy science, and I strongly believe that this is the direction future science should take.
Lessons learned
Publishing a Registered Report required me to plan every aspect of the study in advance and justify each decision theoretically and methodologically. I had to define precise hypotheses, select appropriate statistical analyses, determine a well-powered sample size, and consider in advance how different possible outcomes would inform the underlying theory.
This process made me a more careful and reflective researcher. It taught me to design studies that are robust from the ground up, and it gave me confidence that, regardless of the results, the research would be conducted with the highest level of rigor and transparency.
This approach also makes far more efficient use of resources: reviewers play a more meaningful and constructive role, shaping the study at Stage 1 when their feedback can truly improve the work. In traditional formats, valuable reviewer time is often spent evaluating fully completed manuscripts, which can then be rejected and sent through multiple rounds of review at other journals—leading to redundant peer review and wasted effort. Registered Reports prevent this inefficiency because acceptance is based on the soundness of the study design, not on the outcome. Moreover, the reviews themselves are openly published alongside the article, which increases transparency and creates a sense of collaboration between authors and reviewers rather than competition.
As a PhD researcher, I am proud to have contributed to advancing open research practices in this way and to set this as a standard for my research career, which will hopefully inspire others to adopt this model as well.
URLs, references and further information
-
The publication: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2024.10.008
-
The data,materials and preregistered studies are available at: https://osf.io/fjb8q/, https://osf.io/fmbvk/, and https://osf.io/bmtp6
-
Stage 1 IPA: https://osf.io/spbt4/
-
Stage 2: https://osf.io/ku8qc?
view_only¼f331df53b50f431386fabba9e386b387.
-
Recommendation: https://rr.peercommunityin.org/articles/rec?id¼888