Registered Reports are a novel approach to publishing research that involves two rounds of peer review, one before and one after the study is conducted, that is starting to be used for systematic reviews, as in this special series. In the commentary, we briefly provide an overview of Registered Reports, including potential benefits (e.g., increased transparency, increased credibility due to constraining researcher flexibility, increased study quality and rigor due to prospective feedback from reviewers) and challenges (e.g., over-specifying exploratory elements of the review in the stage-1 manuscript, delayed or lack of completion after in-principle acceptance of the proposed study) for systematic reviews. We conclude with recommendations for addressing these challenges and for future research to inform the use of Registered Reports for systematic reviews.
AllenC.MehlerD. M. (2019). Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond. PLOS Biology, 17(5), Article e3000246. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246
CookB. G.HartS. A.TherrienW. J. (2025). Registered Reports in learning disabilities research: An introduction to the special series. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 48(2), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487251317533
4.
CookB. G.TherrienW. J. (2025). Introduction to the special series: Examining the special education research base. Remedial and Special Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325251379789
5.
CookB. G.TherrienW. J.FlemingJ. I.EspinasD. R.McLucasA. S.HodgesJ.FanX. (2025). A review of null effects in the special education research base: A Registered Report. Remedial and Special Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325251361907
6.
de VriezeJ. (2018, September18). Meta-analyses were supposed to end scientific debates. Often, they only cause more controversy. Science News. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav4617
7.
GerpottF. H.BrikerR.BanksG. (2024). New ways of seeing: Four ways you have not thought about Registered Reports yet. The Leadership Quarterly, 35(2), Article 101783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101783
8.
KiyonagaA.ScimecaJ. M. (2019). Practical considerations for navigating registered reports. Trends in Neurosciences, 42(9), 568–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2019.07.003
9.
LakensD.MesquidaC.RastiS.DitroiloM. (2024). The benefits of preregistration and Registered Reports. Evidence-Based Toxicology, 2(1), Article 2376046. https://doi.org/10.1080/2833373X.2024.2376046
10.
LloydK. E.ChambersC. D. (2024). Registered Reports: Benefits and challenges of implementing in medicine. The British Journal of General Practice, 74(739), 58–59. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp24X736185
11.
MakelM. C.HodgesJ.CookB. G.PluckerJ. A. (2021). Both questionable and open research practices are prevalent in education research. Educational Researcher, 50(8), 493–504. https://10.3102/0013189X211001356
12.
NosekB. A.HardwickeT. E.MoshontzH.AllardA.CorkerK. S.DreberA.FidlerF.HilgardJ.StruhlM. K.NuijtenM. B.RohrerJ. M.RomeroF.ScheelA. M.SchererL. D.SchönbrodtF. D.VazireS. (2022). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73(1), 719–748. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157
13.
PlessenC. Y.PanagiotopoulouO. M.TongL.CuijpersP.KaryotakiE. (2025). Digital mental health interventions for the treatment of depression: A multiverse meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 369, 1031–1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.10.018
14.
ReischerH. N.CowanH. R. (2020). Quantity over quality? Reproducible psychological science from a mixed methods perspective. Collabra: Psychology, 6(1), Article 26. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.284
15.
ScheelA. M.SchijenM. R.LakensD. (2021). An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard psychology literature with registered reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211007467
16.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632
17.
SoderbergC. K.ErringtonT. M.SchiavoneS. R.BottesiniJ.ThornF. S.VazireS.EsterlingK. M.NosekB. A. (2021). Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(8), 990–997. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4
VoracekM.KossmeierM.TranU. S. (2019). Which data to meta-analyze, and how? A specification-curve and multiverse-analysis approach to meta-analysis. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 227(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000357
