Aims: The modern scientific publishing system suffers from many problems, amongst which one of the most important  is the pressure to publish positive results. A potentially simple way to mitigate publication bias are reviews of manuscript, prior to the data collection and analyses, as well as results presentation and discussion (i.e. Registered Reports).

Methods: To test this prediction we conducted a quasi-experiment: two groups of students (n=38), as a part of their academic classes, were asked to design and conduct research projects. They were divided in two groups – Registered Reports- and control group. In both groups students have been encouraged to publish their papers in a local scientific journal.

Results: Analyses revealed significant differences in p levels between groups, suggesting more reliable scores for Registered Reports group.

Conclusions: Our study partially confirmed the  stated hypothesis and suggested, that registered reports might mitigate publication bias. Future recommendations are advised.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Piotr Sorokowski, Institute of Psychology, University of Wrocław Dawida 1, Wrocław, Poland

Head of the Institute of Psychology at the University of Wroclaw, Poland. He has published over sixty research articles related to evolutionary, cultural and social psychology. His field studies in nonindustrial societies (Hadza of Tanzania, Tsimane’ of Bolivia, Yali of Papua) have shed new light on the interplay between evolution and culture on social and reproductive success.

Agata Groyecka, Institute of Psychology, University of Wrocław Dawida 1, Wrocław, Poland

The PhD student in Institute of Psychology at the University of Wroclaw. She is interested in social psychology and creativity psychology. She studies the link between creative cognition and intergroup relations.

Kamil Błaszczyński, Faculty of Psychology, University of Wrocław Ul. Dawida 1, Wrocław, Poland

Graduate of University of Wrocław. Ended master studies in pedagogy and defended his PhD thesis in Sociology. Employee in Institute of Psychology of University of Wrocław. His research interests concerne such topics as academic education, education of adults, statisticall analysis, IT usage in education.

Tomasz Frąckowiak, Faculty of Psychology, University of Wrocław Ul. Dawida 1, Wrocław, Poland

He works in Institute of Psychology at the University of Wroclaw. In his work, he focuses on psychological determinants of longevity, conditions of positive ageing, measures of older people’s quality of life and programs to increase their well-being. He authors many publications in the domain of psychology ageing, e.g. “Fenomen długowieczności. Perspektywa psychologiczna" [Phenomenon of longevity. Psychological perspective] (Scholar, 2019). Recently, he conducts research on cross-cultural differences in attitudes toward older people.


Aleksander Kobylarek, Institute of Pedagogy, University of Wrocław, , ul. Dawida 1/3, Poland

PhD in humanities, assistant professor at the University of Wrocław (Poland) in Departament of Pedagogy, manager of the University of the Third Age in the University of Wrocław up to 2016, author of more than 100 scientific publications, including articles, books, chapters, editor-in-chief of international scientific "Journal of Education Culture and Society" and "Ogrody Nauk i Sztuk (Gardens of Science and Arts).


Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012). Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483(7391), 531–533.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 42(2), 155.

Callaway, E. (2011). Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities. Nature, 479(7371), 15.

Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T. H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., ... & Altmejd, A. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637.

Enserink, M. (2012). Final Report on Stapel Also Blames Field As a Whole. Science, 338(6112), 1270–1271.

Erlich, A. (2018). Pre-acceptance as a method to combat publication bias in area studies: a pilot in the Caucasus. Caucasus Survey, 6(3), 224-229.

Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738.

Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS ONE, 5(4), e10068.

Findley, M. G., Jensen, N. M., Malesky, E. J., & Pepinsky, T. B. (2016). Can results-free review reduce publication bias? The results and implications of a pilot study. Comparative Political Studies, 49(13), 1667-1703.

Head, M. L., Holman, L., Lanfear, R., Kahn, A. T., & Jennions, M. D. (2015). The Extent and Consequences of PHacking in Science. PLOS Biology, 13(3), e1002106.

Jackson, C. J., Levine, S. Z., Furnham, A., & Burr, N. (2002). Predictors of Cheating Behavior at a University: A Lesson From the Psychology of Work. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(5), 1031–1046.

John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532.

Kuczyńska, A. (1992). Inwentarz do oceny płci psychologicznej. Podręcznik. [The Psychological Sex Inventory] Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych PTP.

Lakens, D. (2015). On the challenges of drawing conclusions from p-values just below 0.05. PeerJ, 3, e1142.

Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2004). Cumulative meta–analysis: a new tool for detection of temporal trends and publication bias in ecology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 271(1551), 1961-1966.

Levine, T. R., Asada, K. J., & Carpenter, C. (2009). Sample Sizes and Effect Sizes are Negatively Correlated in Meta-Analyses: Evidence and Implications of a Publication Bias Against NonSignificant Findings. Communication Monographs, 76(3), 286–302.

Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A., & Hegarty, B. (2012). Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 537-542.

Morgan, G. A. (2000). Quasi-Experimental Designs. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 39. 794–796

McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 219–232.

Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Du Sert, N. P., Simonsohn U., Wagenmakers E.J., Ware J.J. & Ioannidis, J. P. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 21.

Nosek, B. A., & Lakens, D. (2014). Registered Reports: A Method to Increase the Credibility of Published Results. Social Psychology, 45(3), 137–141.

Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 2600-2606

Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631.

Oleszkiewicz, A., Karwowski, M., Pisanski, K., Sorokowski, P., Sobrado, B., & Sorokowska, A. (2017a). Who uses emoticons? Data from 86 702 Facebook users. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 289-295.

Oleszkiewicz, A., Frackowiak, T., Sorokowska, A., & Sorokowski, P. (2017b). Children can accurately recognize facial emotions from emoticons. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 372-377.

Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716–aac4716.

Powell, K. (2016, November 4). Hard work, little reward: Nature readers reveal working hours and research challenges. Retrieved form

Probst, T. M., & Hagger, M. S. (2015). Advancing the Rigour and Integrity of Our Science: The Registered Reports Initiative: Editorial. Stress and Health, 31(3), 177–179.

Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641.

Saunders, R., & Savulescu, J. (2008). Research ethics and lessons from Hwanggate: what can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud? Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(3), 214–221.

da Silva, J. A. T. (2016). Does the removal of results from a submitted paper reduce publication bias?. Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(1), 29-30

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.

Simonsohn, U. (2013). Just Post It: The Lesson From Two Cases of Fabricated Data Detected by Statistics Alone. Psychological Science, 24(10), 1875–1888.

Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014a). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 534–547.

Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014b). p-Curve and effect size correcting for publication bias using only significant results. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 666–681.

Sorokowski, P., Kulczycki, E., Sorokowska A., Pisanski, K. (2017). Predatory journals recruit fake editor. Nature, 543, 481-483.

Stahl, D., & Pickles, A. (2018). Fact or fiction: reducing the proportion and impact of false positives. Psychological Medicine, 48(7), 1084-1091

Sterling, T. D., Rosenbaum, W. L., & Weinkam, J. J. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. The American Statistician, 49(1), 108-112.

Stroebe, W., & Strack, F. (2014). The Alleged Crisis and the Illusion of Exact Replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 59–71.

Vul, E., Harris, C., Winkielman, P., & Pashler, H. (2009). Puzzlingly High Correlations in fMRI Studies of Emotion, Personality, and Social Cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(3), 274–290.

Wagenmakers, E., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 426–432.

Wicherts, J. M., Bakker, M., & Molenaar, D. (2011). Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results. PLoS ONE, 6(11), e26828.

Wicherts, J., Veldkamp, C., Augusteijn, H., Bakker, M., van Aert, R., & van Assen, M. (2016). Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies A checklist to avoid p-hacking. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1832.

Zwaan, R. A., Pecher, D., Paolacci, G., Bouwmeester, S., Verkoeijen, P., Dijkstra, K., & Zeelenberg, R. (2017). Participant nonnaiveté and the reproducibility of cognitive psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 1968-1972




How to Cite

Sorokowski, P., Groyecka, A., Błaszczyński, K., Frąckowiak, T., & Kobylarek, A. (2019). REGISTERED REPORTS AS A METHOD TO INCREASE CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE – EXPERIMENTAL STUDY AMONG PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDENTS. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 10(2), 67–75.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>