Registered Reports

Highly specialised requests are first checked for feasibility from this information. Please do not send confidential data through the public form; describe it first and agree secure transfer afterwards.

1. 01Enquiry and requirement assessment
2. 02Technical scoping and proposal
3. 03Execution
4. 04Quality review and delivery, with an agreed round of revisions

Read the full project workflow.

In depth: how the work is done

1. How the registered report process works

   Authors submit a Stage 1 manuscript containing introduction, aims and hypotheses, method and proposed analyses. Reviewers assess the importance of the question and the rigour of the methods. After revision, the editor may grant in-principle acceptance. After data collection and analysis, authors submit the Stage 2 manuscript. We help authors understand the stages and journal-specific requirements.

2. Stage 1 introduction and rationale

   The introduction must establish the importance of the question and the logic for the hypotheses. Because the paper will be published whatever the result, the rationale should not depend on a specific outcome. We help authors write a balanced case.

3. Methods detailed enough to be followed

   Stage 1 methods specify materials, procedures, measurements, quality checks and exclusion criteria. Details that would normally be settled during the study, such as data cleaning rules, must be defined in advance. We review for gaps.

4. Analysis plan

   The plan states the statistical tests or models, the thresholds for inference, handling of missing data and outliers and how multiple outcomes will be treated. It may include decision rules for interpreting outcomes. Exploratory analyses are separated from confirmatory ones.

5. Sample size and sensitivity

   A justification of sample size, preferably through power analysis or sensitivity analysis for the smallest effect of interest, is expected. Where power calculations are not feasible, authors explain the basis for their sample. We help present assumptions clearly.

6. Quality checks and pilot data

   Registered reports may require checks showing that the method works, such as pilot data or positive controls, to avoid uninformative outcomes. Describing such checks and criteria for passing them strengthens the proposal.

7. Stage 2 reporting

   The final report follows the approved protocol, reports all planned analyses and clearly labels deviations and exploratory results. We help authors align the manuscript with the Stage 1 plan and write a transparent deviations section.

8. Practical considerations

   Timelines include two review stages, and in-principle acceptance depends on completion. Funding and ethics approvals should be arranged before Stage 1 submission. We advise on planning, while recognising that journal policies differ.

9. Handling unexpected events during data collection

   Even well-planned studies meet surprises: equipment failure, supply changes or participant dropout. The Stage 1 plan can specify contingencies, and Stage 2 must report what happened and how it was handled. Informing the editor promptly about substantial problems is good practice. We help authors prepare contingency language and, if needed, a transparent account of deviations and their implications for the conclusions.

10. Interpreting outcomes in Stage 2

    Because the paper is accepted regardless of results, Stage 2 interpretation should follow the pre-specified decision rules. If the hypothesis is not supported, the discussion should consider reasons without rewriting the hypothesis. If results are supportive, limitations still apply. Exploratory findings are reported separately and labelled clearly. We help authors keep the discussion faithful to the approved plan.

Common pitfalls this service helps avoid

• Vague analysis plan. Reviewers cannot judge rigour and deviations will be hard to justify.
• Underpowered design. The study may be uninformative.
• Unreported deviations. Stage 2 must state all departures from the approved plan.
• Assuming acceptance is guaranteed. In-principle acceptance depends on following the protocol.

What good reporting looks like

Support for a registered report is documented with a Stage 1 checklist, an analysis-plan table, a power and sensitivity summary and a Stage 2 alignment map. Authors conduct the study and report results as obtained. We do not guarantee in-principle acceptance or publication.

An illustrative scenario

Hypothetical example written for explanation. It is not a client case, a result or a testimonial.

Imagine a team planning to test whether a surface texture alters wear rate across materials. The Stage 1 report defines hypotheses, materials, load and speed conditions, measurement procedures, sample sizes from a sensitivity analysis and the statistical model including how outliers will be handled. After in-principle acceptance, they run the tests; the Stage 2 report documents one deviation, a replaced sensor, and its effect.

Questions to settle before you begin

• Is my analysis plan specific enough to follow?
• What smallest effect am I able to detect?
• What quality checks show my method works?
• Which approvals are in place before Stage 1?
• How will I report deviations?

Key terms

Registered report

A format with peer review before data collection.

In-principle acceptance

An editor's commitment to publish if the protocol is followed.

Confirmatory analysis

An analysis planned in advance to test a hypothesis.

Exploratory analysis

An analysis not planned in advance.

Sensitivity analysis (design)

Determining the smallest effect detectable with a design.

Working together on Specialised Scholarly Article Formats projects

Specialised article engagements begin by confirming which format suits your material, since short communications, methods, data, software, protocol and replication papers each have conventions and length limits. We ask for the results, code or datasets that the article describes, the target journal's guidelines and your deadline. Drafting follows the format's structure, and reporting checklists are applied where they exist. Statements about data and code availability reflect what you can actually share. We do not fabricate results, and we do not promise acceptance.

Few projects need a single service in isolation. These are the services most often combined with this one.

• Protocol Papers

  Support for protocol papers that describe planned studies or reviews before results exist, so that methods are transparent and public in advance.

• Methods Papers

  Support for methods papers that present a new or improved method, with clear algorithm or protocol description, validation and comparison to existing methods.

• Replication Studies

  Support for reporting replication studies that re-test previously published findings, including departures from the original protocol and how they affect interpretation.