Imagine researchers want to test whether sending a reminder changes attendance at a free workshop. A journal might see the work only after the researchers know the result. With a Registered Report, reviewers can first consider the question and the planned method. That changes what an editor knows at the point of making a provisional publishing decision.
Stage one is the plan
The Center for Open Science describes a publishing format in which reviewers examine the research question and method before the outcomes are known. A plan can set out how people enter the study, what is measured, and which analysis will answer the question. Reviewers can ask for changes while the design can still be improved.
In the fictional workshop study, researchers could define attendance as a recorded check-in, describe the assignment of reminders and specify which sessions count. That makes it possible to see later whether the outcome reported in the paper matches what the study set out to measure.
Stage two is the work and its results
A journal may accept the plan in principle. The commitment is conditional on carrying out the agreed methods and meeting the journal’s quality requirements. The final review can check how the work followed the protocol and whether the conclusions fit the results. An unexpected result can still be publishable under the format. Researchers can also report additional analyses and label them as exploratory.
The journal PLOS One published a Registered Report Protocol in 2025 for a review of policies on healthy ageing in response to climate change. Its abstract lists the databases the authors plan to search, their language criterion and the way they plan to assess and summarise studies. Readers can inspect those choices directly in the protocol.
Match the document to the claim
A protocol describes what researchers intend to do. A results article presents what they did and what they found. When a headline says a study showed something, check whether it links to a protocol or to the report with results. The journal label and the tense in the abstract can help you tell them apart.
If both stages are available, compare the planned outcome and analysis with those reported at the end. Look for explanations of changes, including changes prompted by the data collection process. The record makes the decision to change something easier to inspect, while the final results still need to be assessed on their evidence.
Sources & further reading
- Center for Open Science | Registered Reports
Defines the two-stage format, in-principle acceptance and exploratory analysis.
- PLOS Computational Biology | Ten simple rules for writing a Registered Report
Explains what reviewers assess at each stage and how reporting decisions work.
- PLOS One | Policies for healthy ageing in response to climate change
A published protocol that specifies search, eligibility and synthesis methods.