As far as I know, the Journal of Politics is the first to have the policy that "The submission of unregistered laboratory, field, and survey experiments will not be accepted." If you've followed my work, you will not be surprised to hear I have mixed feelings about this. https://twitter.com/The_JOP/status/1350385896315617280
Pro: I think it makes perfect sense to require preregistration of a carefully planned study. But: A good test of a theory requires a lot of preparatory work on the auxiliary assumptions, and establishing a strong derivation chain. (see our recent paper https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691620966795).
Against: Part of such preparatory work might involve exploratory experimentation. This is valuable work, and I wouldn’t know why a journal would not want to publish this (as long as it is clearly described as such).
Pro: It will make it clear which tests were planned before looking at the data, and which after. This makes it possible for people to transparently evaluate the severity of each test – this is the value of preregistration. http://team1mile.com/sjpr62-3/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Lakens_JPR623221-230.pdf
Against: The risk is you force people to write meaningless preregistrations when they have no strong prediction, just to jump through a hoop. People will write them, but they will be a distraction at best, and used as a heuristic at worst.
So in the end, whether this works out will depend a lot on how it is implemented, and the instructions reviewers get. Preregistration does not necessarily improve the quality of a study.
You can follow @lakens.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.