Call for papers: Introducing Registered Reports at Psychological Methods

Stage 1 manuscripts due: April 1, 2027

Registered reports are a modern publication format borne out of the methodological reform movement. Hundreds of journals, including top journals in psychology, offer them, but they have yet to be widely adopted by journals publishing methodological research. Inspired by a petition led by AK Montoya, PhD, and signed by 85 scholars in August 2025 (Montoya, 2025), Psychological Methods is introducing the use of registered reports in methodological work via a special issue edited by JK Flake, PhD, and DB McCoach, PhD. Stage 1 reports, described below, are due April 1, 2027. This call describes the format and offers guidance to interested authors.

A registered report (RR) is a type of journal article that aims to limit the publication bias associated with statistically significant or novel findings by conducting peer review on the introduction, methods, and analysis plan of a study prior to its execution and, therefore, before its empirical results are known (Henderson & Chambers, 2022).

The key difference between an RR and a traditional empirical manuscript is that there are two stages of peer review: one that occurs prior to conducting the study and one after the completion of the study. First, researchers conceive an idea, then use it to design a study and plan the analyses. Researchers write a partial paper consisting of the introduction, methods, and analysis plan along with any contingency plans—called the stage 1 report—and submit it to the journal. At this point, the peer-review process occurs, and the partial paper will likely develop further in iterating between authors, editors, and reviewers before the stage 1 report receives either an In-Principle Acceptance, an agreement to publish the paper once complete given there are no unjustified changes, or a rejection (Oshiro et al., 2024, pp. 205–206). For those familiar with the voluntary practice of pre-registration, a registered report is a manuscript type that formally peer reviews a literature review with a detailed pre-registration.

Recent work demonstrates that methodological studies are difficult to replicate or reproduce (Luijken et al., 2024), fail to meet basic standards of transparency (Siepe et al., 2024), and can be cherry-picked in a similar fashion to applied research (Pawel et al., 2024). Registered reports are a step towards addressing these issues yet remain uncommon. As of writing, only a handful of methodological journals offer registered reports (e.g., Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology), and more generally, there is limited guidance specific to methodological research for authors, editors, and reviewers who want to develop and publish them. Although best practices (examples and guidelines) for registered reports found in traditional empirical psychological research are relevant to methodological registered reports, we expect methodological researchers to encounter unique challenges.

Given this context, the current special issue seeks to address barriers to developing practices for methodological registered reports by doing. Psychological Methods will review and publish an introductory set of registered reports, concluding with a guest editorial that outlines our initial understanding of best practices and lessons learned from these articles.

Authors should submit a complete stage 1 manuscript through Editorial Manager, selecting the “Special Issue: Registered Report” article type in the relevant pulldown menu. Stage 1 manuscripts are due April 1, 2027, and first decisions are expected by the end of May 2027. Although Psychological Methods will not review proposals or letters of intent, questions about the call, including whether a planned study is a good fit, can be sent to JK Flake.

Preparing a stage 1 submission

A stage 1 manuscript should include an introduction/literature review, the proposed methods, and a complete analysis plan. This should include enough detail for the reviewers to be able to review any relevant data generating or analysis code and reproduce mock results or figures. If submitting a simulation study, this includes the data-generating mechanisms, the methods compared, the performance measures, and the number of repetitions, as well as any pilot or preliminary simulations and how they informed the design. Traditional empirical manuscripts often include simulated or pilot data to develop analysis plans and code. In the context of a simulation, this could instead be a limited number of replications and/or conditions to ensure code can be reviewed and executed successfully ahead of any full run. The RR does not have to be a simulation study and we also invite other registered reports that seek to develop or evaluate methods. Stage 2 manuscripts will be evaluated on adherence to the approved plan, with any deviations or exploratory analyses clearly reported. We recommend the following resources:

Registered reports and simulation research

Chambers, C. D., & Tzavella, L. (2022). The past, present and future of Registered Reports. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01193-7opens in new window

Montoya, A. K., & Anderson, S. F. (2026). Defining and differentiating repeatability in Monte Carlo simulation studies [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/psfkt_v2opens in new window

Siepe, B. S., Bartoš, F., Boulesteix, A.-L., Heck, D. W., Peikert, A., Sarafoglou, A., & Pawel, S. (2026). Why, when, and how to (or not to) preregister a simulation study [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cxjrb_v1opens in new window

Tutorials and templates

Henderson, E. L., & Chambers, C. D. (2022). Ten simple rules for writing a Registered Report. PLOS Computational Biology, 18(10), e1010571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010571opens in new window

Morris, T. P., White, I. R., & Crowther, M. J. (2019). Using simulation studies to evaluate statistical methods. Statistics in Medicine, 38(11), 2074–2102. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.8086opens in new window

Oshiro, B., Alley, L. J., & Flake, J. K. (2024). Want to try a registered report? Here are our lessons learned. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78(4), 205–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000338opens in new window

Siepe, B. S., Bartoš, F., Morris, T. P., Boulesteix, A.-L., Heck, D. W., & Pawel, S. (2024). Simulation studies for methodological research in psychology: A standardized template for planning, preregistration, and reporting. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000695opens in new window

Strobl, C., Chalmers, R. P., & Henninger, M. (2026). SIMP²L: A template for simulation preregistration, piloting documentation and transparency over the entire simulation life-cycle [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/r7qb5_v1opens in new window

Examples of methodological registered reports

Fossum, J. L., Montoya, A. K., & Anderson, S. F. (in press). How does model (mis)specification impact statistical power, type I error rate, and parameter bias in moderated mediation? A registered report. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/prqsg_v3opens in new window

Guassi Moreira, J. F., Block, J., Cruz, A. M., Enders, C. K., & Montoya, A. K. (in press). Registered replication report and extension of Maas & Hox (2005), sufficient sample sizes for multilevel models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fk8jzopens in new window

Niethammer, M., Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.-L., Fried, E. I., Morris, T. P., Sauer, C., Bonneville, E. F., Aczel, B., Hoogeveen, S., Sarafoglou, A., & Hoffmann, S. (2026). Crowdsourcing methodological comparisons: A many-analysts simulation study to identify conditions under which results in convenience samples generalize to target populations [Stage 1 registered report with in-principle acceptance at Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science]. OSF. https://osf.io/8vcxhopens in new window

Other works cited

Luijken, K., Lohmann, A., Alter, U., Gonzalez, J. C., Clouth, F. J., Fossum, J. L., Hesen, L., Huizing, A. H. J., Ketelaar, J., Montoya, A. K., Nab, L., Nijman, R. C. C., de Vries, B. B. L. P., Tibbe, T. D., Wang, Y. A., & Groenwold, R. H. H. (2024). Replicability of simulation studies for the investigation of statistical methods: The RepliSims project. Royal Society Open Science, 11(1), 231003. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231003opens in new window

Montoya, A. K. (2025, August 19). Adopt registered reports at Psychological Methods [Petition]. Change.org. https://www.change.org/RRs_at_PsychMethodsopens in new window

Pawel, S., Kook, L., & Reeve, K. (2024). Pitfalls and potentials in simulation studies: Questionable research practices in comparative simulation studies allow for spurious claims of superiority of any method. Biometrical Journal, 66(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.202200091opens in new window