### EHPS 2022: Preregistration workshop(s) This project contains the slides and other relevant resources for the workshops on preregistration at EHPS 2022 by Gjalt-Jorn Peters and Chris Noone. You can find the slides below [in the files section](https://osf.io/37ts5/files/). Here, we provide a bibliography for our workshops (note that where Open Access versions exist of these articles (and we had them handy), we added them in the Files section, too): Benning, S. D., Bachrach, R. L., Smith, E. A., Freeman, A. J., & Wright, A. G. C. (2019). The Registration Continuum in Clinical Science: A Guide toward Transparent Practices. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(6), 528–540. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000451 Brodeur, A., Cook, N., Hartley, J., & Heyes, A. (2022). Do Pre-Registration and Pre-Analysis Plans Reduce p-Hacking and Publication Bias? (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 4180594). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4180594 Devezer, B., Nardin, L. G., Baumgaertner, B., & Buzbas, E. O. (2019). Scientific discovery in a model-centric framework: Reproducibility, innovation, and epistemic diversity. PLOS ONE, 14(5), e0216125. https://doi.org/gf86cs Chen, W. (2017, August 19). P-hacking and the garden of forking paths. Mathecology. https://mathecology.wordpress.com/2017/08/19/p-hacking-and-the-garden-of-forking-paths/ de Vries, Y. A., Roest, A. M., de Jonge, P., Cuijpers, P., Munafò, M. R., & Bastiaansen, J. A. (2018). The cumulative effect of reporting and citation biases on the apparent efficacy of treatments: The case of depression. Psychological Medicine, 48(15), 2453–2455. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718001873 Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement Schmeasurement: Questionable Measurement Practices and How to Avoid Them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 456–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393 Hardwicke, T. E., Thibault, R. T., Kosie, J. E., Wallach, J. D., Kidwell, M. C., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2022). Estimating the Prevalence of Transparency and Reproducibility-Related Research Practices in Psychology (2014–2017). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620979806 Haroz, S. (2022). Comparison of Preregistration Platforms [Preprint]. MetaArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/zry2u Haven, T. L., Errington, T. M., Gleditsch, K. S., van Grootel, L., Jacobs, A. M., Kern, F. G., Piñeiro, R., Rosenblatt, F., & Mokkink, L. B. (2020). Preregistering Qualitative Research: A Delphi Study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 160940692097641. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920976417 Jamieson, M. K., Pownall, M., & Govaart, G. H. (2022). Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner’s guide [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xvrhm Kaplan, R. M., & Irvin, V. L. (2015). Likelihood of Null Effects of Large NHLBI Clinical Trials Has Increased over Time. PLOS ONE, 10(8), e0132382. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132382 Krypotos, A.-M., Klugkist, I., Mertens, G., & Engelhard, I. M. (2019). A step-by-step guide on preregistration and effective data sharing for psychopathology research. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(6), 517–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000424 Lakens, D. (2019). The value of preregistration for psychological science: A conceptual analysis. Japanese Psychological Review, 62(3), 221–230. Lakens, D., & DeBruine, L. M. (2021). Improving Transparency, Falsifiability, and Rigor by Making Hypothesis Tests Machine-Readable. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2), 251524592097094. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920970949 Lakens, D. (2022). Sample Size Justification. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1), 33267. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33267 Lindsay, B. A. N. and D. S. (2018). Preregistration Becoming the Norm in Psychological Science. APS Observer, 31. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/preregistration-becoming-the-norm-in-psychological-science McPhetres, J. (2020). What should a preregistration contain? PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cj5mh Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2016). Innovation in the collective brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1690), 20150192. https://doi.org/gfzkmd Nosek, B. A., Beck, E. D., Campbell, L., Flake, J. K., Hardwicke, T. E., Mellor, D. T., van ’t Veer, A. E., & Vazire, S. (2019). Preregistration Is Hard, And Worthwhile. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(10), 815–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.009 Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114 O’Connor, C., & Weatherall, J. O. (2018). Scientific polarization. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 8(3), 855–875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-018-0213-9 Ogden, J. (2016). Celebrating variability and a call to limit systematisation: The example of the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy and the Behaviour Change Wheel. Health Psychology Review, 10(3), 245–250. https://doi.org/gh25r5 Rubin, M. (2017). An Evaluation of Four Solutions to the Forking Paths Problem: Adjusted Alpha, Preregistration, Sensitivity Analyses, and Abandoning the Neyman-Pearson Approach. Review of General Psychology, 21(4), 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000135 Schäfer, T., & Schwarz, M. A. (2019). The Meaningfulness of Effect Sizes in Psychological Research: Differences Between Sub-Disciplines and the Impact of Potential Biases. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00813 Scheel, A. M. (2022). Why most psychological research findings are not even wrong. Infant and Child Development, 31(1), e2295. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2295 Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. R. M. J., & Lakens, D. (2021). An Excess of Positive Results: Comparing the Standard Psychology Literature With Registered Reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2), 25152459211007468. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211007467 Spybrook, J., Maynard, R., & Anderson, D. (2022). Study Registration for the Field of Prevention Science: Considering Options and Paths Forward. Prevention Science, 23(5), 764–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-021-01290-z Szollosi, A., Kellen, D., Navarro, D. J., Shiffrin, R., Rooij, I. van, Zandt, T. V., & Donkin, C. (2020). Is Preregistration Worthwhile? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(2), 94–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.11.009 Wai, J., & Halpern, D. F. (2018). The Impact of Changing Norms on Creativity in Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 466–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618773326 Warren, M. (2018, October 24). First analysis of ‘pre-registered’ studies shows sharp rise in null findings. Nature, d41586-018-07118–1. Zollman, K. J. S. (2010). The Epistemic Benefit of Transient Diversity. Erkenntnis, 72(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10/dnjk7f