Research domains
This assessment can fit in any domain where projects are being assessed.
Context and considerations
There would be many benefits to this, including alleviating pressure on the overloaded funding system (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02584-w). If applicants were required to have already published a registered report, this would delegate a big part of the grant review to the journals: it would confirm that the rationale and study design is robust. Funders could then decide if the proposal aligns with their priorities. As a result, registered reports for grant applications would benefit funders, academics, and users of research outcomes (by improving research quality).
Experiments targeting this idea could look at several aspects of the implementation, including:
- Determining if this is a viable alternative route to assessing grant applications.
- Determining if this promotes increased study preregistration and registered reports.
- Determining if this improves the quality of the research proposals. For example, experiments could look at whether registered reports for grant applications improved quality and efficiency of assessment of research proposals.
- Determining whether registered reports for grant applications enable academics to get visibility and credit for the work they put into proposals, regardless of whether these are funded.
- Determining whether registered reports for grant applications change publication process by encouraging preregistration. of research (i.e., cultural change).
Challenges and mitigations
Challenges: Buy-in from funders and academics, especially if academics worry about disclosing their ideas: what would happen if they published their idea but it wasn’t funded? We think this would allow academics to gain credit for their ideas, but they may worry about being ‘scooped’.
Mitigation and further reading: Cancer Research UK is piloting a version of this proposal https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/for-researchers/apply-for-and-manage-your-funding/registered-reports. We can learn from their experience if/when we expand this experiment.
Evaluating success
Evaluation criteria could relate to:
- Increased number of open research outputs, including registered reports.
- Deceased pressure on grant application review systems, including the time taken to reach a decision.
- Improved integrity and robustness of research outcomes (because of improved study design).
Relevant resources and literature
This section includes resources, literature, and reports relevant to this specific experimental idea.
Templates from funders and institutions
Case examples and literature
A form of this is being piloted by Cancer Research UK, with the registered report submitted only for successful applications, before the project begins.