The research article is a staple genre in the economy of scientific research, and although research articles have received considerable treatment in genre scholarship, little attention has been given to the important development of Registered Reports. Registered Reports are an emerging, hybrid genre that proceeds through a two-stage model of peer review. This article charts the emergence of Registered Reports and explores how this new form intervenes in the evolution of the research article genre by replacing the central topoi of novelty with methodological rigor. Specifically, I investigate this discursive and publishing phenomenon by describing current conversations about challenges in replicating research studies, the rhetorical exigence those conversations create, and how Registered Reports respond to this exigence. Then, to better understand this emerging form, I present an empirical study of the genre itself by closely examining four articles published under the Registered Report model from the journal Royal Society Open Science and then investigating the genre hybridity by examining 32 protocols (Stage 1 Registered Reports) and 77 completed (Stage 2 Registered Reports) from a range of journals in the life and psychological sciences. Findings from this study suggest Registered Reports mark a notable intervention in the research article genre for life and psychological sciences, centering the reporting of science in serious methodological debates.
AukenS. (2015). Utterance and function in genre studies. A literary perspective. In AndersenJ. (Ed.), Genre theory in information studies (pp 155-178). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
2.
BazermanC. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
3.
BazermanC. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In FreedmanA.MedwayP. (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79-101). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
4.
BazermanC. (2000). Letters and the social grounding of differentiated genres. In BartonD.HallN. (Eds.), Letter writing as a social practice (pp. 15-29). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
5.
BerkenkotterC.HuckinT. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
BhatiaV. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
BhatiaV. K. (2005). Generic patterns in promotional discourse. In HalmariH.VirtanenT. (Eds.), Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach (pp. 213-225). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
8.
CasperC. F. (2016). The online research article and the ecological basis of new digital genres. In GrossA.BuehlJ. (Eds.), Science and the Internet: Communicating knowledge in a digital age (pp. 77-98). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
9.
ChambersC. D. (2013). Registered reports: A new publishing initiative atCortex. Cortex, 49(3), 609-610.
10.
ChambersC. D. (2015). Ten reasons why journals must review manuscripts before results are known. Addiction, 110(1), 10-11.
11.
ChambersC. D. (2017). The seven deadly sins of psychology: A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
GrahamS. S.WhalenB. (2008). Mode, medium, and genre: A case study of decisions in new-media design. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(1), 65-91.
14.
GrossA. G.HarmonJ. E. (2016). The Internet revolution in the sciences and humanities. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
15.
GrossA. G.HarmonJ. E.ReidyM. (2002). Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
16.
HarmonJ. E. (2016). The scientific journal: Making it new? In GrossA.BuehlJ. (Eds.), Science and the Internet: Communicating knowledge in a digital age (pp. 33-58). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
17.
HilgardJ.JamiesonK. H. (2017). Science as “broken” versus science as “self-correcting”: How retractions and peer-review problems are exploited to attack science. In JamiesonK. H.KahanD.ScheufeleD. A. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp. 85-92). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
18.
JamiesonK. M. (1975). Antecedent genre as rhetorical constraint. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 406-415.
19.
Kelly [now Mehlenbacher]A. R. (2014). Hacking science: Emerging parascientific genres and public participation in scientific research (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
KerrN. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196-217.
22.
Kittle AutryM. (2013). Genre change online: Open access and the scientific research article genre (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
23.
KronickD. A. (1976). A history of scientific and technical periodicals: The origins and development of the scientific and technical press, 1665-1790. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow.
24.
Mackenzie OwenJ. (2006). The scientific article in the age of digitization. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
25.
McEwanB.CarpenterC. J.WestermanD. (2018). On replication in communication science. Communication Studies, 69(3), 235-241.
26.
MillerC. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-176.
27.
MillerC. R. (2017). Where do genres come from? In MillerC. R.KellyA. R. [now Mehlenbacher] (Eds.), Emerging genres in new media environments (pp. 1-34). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
28.
MillerC. R. (2018). Genre in ancient and networked media. In KennerlyM.PfisterD. S. (Eds.), Ancient rhetorics and digital networks (pp. 176-205). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
29.
MillerC. R.ShepherdD. (2009). Questions for genre theory from the blogosphere. In GiltrowJ.SteinD. (Eds.), Genres in the Internet: Issues in the theory of genre (pp. 263-290). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
30.
MontesiM.Mackenzie OwenJ. (2008). Research journal articles as document genres: Exploring their role in knowledge organization. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 143-167.
31.
Nature Human Behaviour. (2017). Promoting reproducibility with Registered Reports. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0034.
NosekB. A.SpiesJ. R.MotylM. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615-631.
34.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251). doi:10.1126/science.aac4716
35.
OrlikowskiW. J.YatesJ. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 541-574.
36.
ParéA.Starke-MeyerringD.McAlpineL. (2009). The dissertation as a multi-genre: Many readers, many readings. In BazermanC.FigueiredoD.BoniniA. (Eds.), Genre in a changing world (pp. 179-193). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press and WAC Clearinghouse (http://wac.colostate.edu/).
37.
PhelpsM.CossC.WangH.CookM. (2016). Registered report: Coding-independent regulation of the tumor suppressor PTEN by competing endogenous mRNAs. Elife, 5, e12470.
38.
PrelliL. J. (1989). A rhetoric of science: Inventing scientific discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
39.
Review History RSOS-160285.R0. (2016). The effects of exposure to objective coherence on perceived meaning in life: A preregistered direct replication of Heintzelman, Trent & King (2013) (Kaylin Ratner, Anthony L. Burrow and Felix Thoemmes). Royal Society Open. Retrieved from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/11/160431.reviewer-comments.pdf
40.
Review History RSOS-160705. (2017). Subliminal influence on preferences? A test of evaluative conditioning for brief visual conditioned stimuli using auditory unconditioned stimuli (Tobias Heycke, Frederik Aust and Christoph Stahl). Royal Society Open. Retrieved from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/4/9/160935.reviewer-comments.pdf
Review History RSOS-161043.R0. (2017). Radical framing effects in the ultimatum game: The impact of explicit culturally transmitted frames on economic decision-making (Aaron D. Lightner, Pat Barclay and Edward H. Hagen). Royal Society Open. Retrieved from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/4/12/170543.reviewer-comments.pdf
SchryerC. F. (1993). Records as genre. Written Communication, 10, 200-234.
45.
SwalesJ. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
SwalesJ. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
van ‘ t VeerA. E.GallucciM.StelM.van BeestI. (2015). Unconscious deception detection measured by finger skin temperature and indirect veracity judgments –results of a registered report. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(672), 1-11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00672
48.
van ‘ t VeerA. E.StelM.van BeestI.GallucciM. (2014). Registered report: measuring unconscious deception detection by skin temperature. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(442), 1-9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00442
49.
WalshL. (2009). The common topoi of STEM discourse: An apologia and methodological proposal, with pilot survey. Written Communication, 27(1), 120-156.
50.
YatesJ.OrlikowskiW. (2002). Genre systems: Structuring interaction through communicative norms. Journal of Business Communication, 39(1), 13-35.
