Lessons learned from advocacy to promote Registered Reports

Registered Reports (RRs) are a publication format whereby initial peer review is undertaken based on proposed methods, prior to commencement of data collection, following which an in-principle agreement to publication may be made, regardless of the results.¹ RRs are a powerful mechanism to tackle publication bias and also help discourage problematic practices such as ‘outcome switching’,² Hypothesising after the Result is Known (HARKing), and ‘p hacking’. Emerging evidence suggests that RRs, where adopted, are working as intended.³ The BJGP is one of only approximately 1% of journals on MEDLINE that allow authors to publish using RRs.⁴

In collaboration with the Center for Open Science (CoS), we hosted an online hack-a-thon in April 2021 during which participants emailed journal editors to request that they offer RRs. Sixty-six journal editors were emailed by sixteen participants from across the globe using letter templates that remain openly available.⁵ Fourteen responses (21%) were received, which are also available.⁶ Only two responses stated a reason for not adopting RRs and none of the contacted journals changed their policies to offer RRs as of August 2022.

Our experience suggests that there may be a knowledge gap among journal editors regarding the RR format and its wide applicability. Additionally, it is likely that direct, unsolicited outreach has limited capacity to influence journal policies. Journals that offer RRs, such as the BJGP, can pave the way for wider adoption in health and medical publishing by sharing their experience of adopting RRs.

Our hack-a-thon involved volunteers, mostly early-career researchers (ECRs), who understand the benefits of RRs and the impact that they could have on the research quality if the format were made widely available. Mobilising other stakeholders in the research ecosystem who have greater agency to promote uptake of RRs, including funders, institutions, and governmental bodies, along with ECRs, will be crucial to achieve change.

Although the scale of the problems regarding research quality and integrity are daunting, making RRs available to researchers is a simple but far-reaching measure that journals can adopt to help improve standards and trust in our system of scientific discovery.

• © British Journal of General Practice 2022