Parasites in Peril

Last week I received an email from the academic publishing giant Elsevier, inviting me to check out Elsevier’s new Open Science page. I don’t believe for one minute that Elsevier supports open science, but I found the email encouraging, because it shows that even Elsevier knows its current business model is unsustainable.

Talking About Registered Reports

Since my earlier blog post about registered reports, I've found myself having quite a few conversations about them. I thought it might be useful to share some of the most common points people have raised, and my thoughts on them.

The Real Barrier to Registered Reports

Figure showing a range of problems (in red) that are addressed by Registered Reports

Registered reports (RRs) are a way of doing science where researchers submit their introduction and method sections (including a detailed plan for data collection and analysis) and pilot data (if any), for peer review before they start collecting the actual study data. Authors get feedback from expert reviewers on whether the question is interesting and well-grounded in the literature, and on whether the methods make sense. The reviewers check that the study will have enough power, that the statistical analyses are the right ones to use, and so forth. Sort of like how a grant proposal would be reviewed, if reviewers had the time and expertise to go through all the methods in detail.