Registered Reports are a publishing format developed by the Center for Open Science to incentivise and reward good research practices and study design, as well as to reduce publication bias and questionable research practices.

Unlike traditional research articles, where authors submit a manuscript describing the results and conclusions of a completed research project, in a Registered Report a study design and research protocol are submitted for peer review prior to any research being carried out.

Publishing a Registered Report is a two-stage process

In the first stage, authors submit a Registered Report Protocol – a manuscript detailing their planned study design. Peer reviewers are asked to assess the importance of the research question proposed, the rationale behind any hypotheses, and the soundness of the proposed methodology. Manuscripts that pass this peer review at this stage are issued in-principle acceptance from the journal. In-principle acceptance is a commitment by the journal to publish the results of the planned research, no matter what those results turn out to be, as long as the authors follow the methodology they have proposed.

In the second stage the authors, having completed their research, submit a complete manuscript consisting of the original research protocol as well as their results, analysis, and conclusions. This manuscript undergoes a second round of peer review in which reviewers are asked to assess whether the authors have followed their proposed methodology, and explained any reasonable deviations from their protocol. If the manuscript passes this second stage of peer review, it is published as a completed Registered Report. Editorial and peer review decisions at this stage will not be based on the perceived importance or novelty of the research results.

For more information about what peer reviewers assess at each stage of a Registered Report, please see our guidelines for reviewing Registered Reports.

For general questions about Registered Reports at Cambridge, please contact openresearch@cambridge.org.

Frequently Asked Questions

What sorts of things are peer reviewers asked to assess, at each stage of a Registered Report?

Please see our guidance for reviewing Registered Reports, and check your journal’s information pages for any journal-specific peer review expectations.

Do Registered Reports have specific requirements regarding transparency of research materials or methodology?

When submitting any stage of a Registered Report, authors should make sure to follow all their journal’s policies regarding research transparency. This includes any policies around sharing research data, code, and other materials, as well as any guidelines on reporting methodology.

Are Registered Report Protocols published independently of completed Registered Reports?

In some cases, yes. Some journals publish Registered Report Protocols as articles in their own right, as soon as they are given in-principle acceptance. In other cases, journals or authors may deposit their Registered Report Protocol in a repository such as Cambridge Open Engage or the Open Science Framework.

How will my completed Registered Report be linked to the original Registered Report Protocol, if that was published separately?

If published on Cambridge Core, the Registered Report Protocol and completed Registered Report will be connected by reciprocal links. In all cases, please also make sure to clearly cite your original Registered Report Protocol in the references of your completed Registered Report.

Is there a time limit for the validity of in-principle acceptance?

We generally expect that research proposed in a Registered Report Protocol be completed within two years. However, we understand that research timelines can be uncertain and that some research projects may take longer. Please reach out to your journal’s editorial team with any questions or concerns about how long you expect it will take to complete your research.

What happens if authors need to deviate from the proposed study design in their Registered Report Protocol?

All deviations, no matter how minor, should be explained in the completed Registered Report. Minor deviations may be permitted, subject to editorial discretion and peer review. Substantial deviations from the original study design may mean that it is no longer reasonable for the results of the study to be published as a completed Registered Report. In these cases, authors may wish to submit a new Registered Report Protocol before proceeding with a new study design, or publish their research results as a standard research article rather than as a completed Registered Report.

What sorts of deviations from the Registered Report Protocol need to be explained in the completed Registered Report?

Examples of things that should be clearly explained in a completed Registered Report include:

• Any experiments that were planned in the Registered Report Protocol for which results have not been reported
• Any additional analyses that were not planned in the Registered Report Protocol
• Unforeseen circumstances, such as changes in equipment or technical errors
• Situations where the time that has elapsed since in-principle acceptance has impacted the proposed experimental procedures
• Any changes to the author list between the Protocol and final Registered Report

What happens if authors do not complete their proposed research?

After receiving in-principle acceptance, there is no obligation for authors to submit a completed Registered Report if it turns out they cannot proceed with their research as planned. In cases where research is carried out but deviates substantially from the study design submitted in the Registered Report Protocol, authors may wish to publish their research results as a standard research article rather than as a completed Registered Report.

Can I retract or withdraw a Registered Report Protocol after it is published?

Any Registered Report Protocols or completed Registered Reports published on Cambridge platforms are subject to our standard post-publication policies.