Citations and social media coverage of pre-registered vs traditional publications in psychology

What is it about?

After more than a decade of practice, registered reports (RRs) are increasingly adopted in psychology. However, the acceptance of RRs in terms of post-publication academic dissemination and public recognition, compared with non-registered reports (non-RR), remained largely unexplored. Based on a meta-analytical selection procedure, we collected 120 pairs of original research papers (RR vs Non-RR). Our analysis revealed that registered reports received fewer citations than matched non-RRs (b = .28, p = .015, R2 Marginal = .32, R2 Conditional = .89) after controlling for null-results reporting, transparency, and authorship metrics. The overall public impact indexed by Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) and the number of Twitter posts were non-significant. AAS and Twitter posts, but not citations, were moderated by the journal's reputation as indexed by its 5-year impact factor. Our findings highlight the complexity of understanding the academic and public acceptance and recognition of current open science practices.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Help to promote open science