**If you are participating in the 27 April, 2021 hackathon for health reseqarch journals, please see the [tracker sheet here] and the recommended [template language here].**
@[toc](Table of Contents)
Please use this [spreadsheet] to coordinate outreach to journals. Feel free to add a journal to the list and please note if you have reached out. If you have a positive response, please share it on the home page of this wiki and with the group [listserv].
## Workflow ##
1. Peruse the spreadsheet to identify or add a target journal.
2. Use and modify the appropriate template language below.
3. Record responses on the table [here]
4. Share your efforts! Tweet to @RegReports or email firstname.lastname@example.org
## Template 1, Generic RR Outreach ##
**draft, revisions required, probably needs to be shorter**
Dear Dr [EDITOR NAME],
I am writing to you in your capacity as [ROLE] of [JOURNAL, PUBLISHER] to let you know about a new format of empirical article called a Registered Report that is designed to improve the transparency and reproducibility of hypothesis-driven research.
Registered Reports differ from conventional empirical articles by performing part of the review process before researchers collect and analyze data (see https://cos.io/rr for details and list of adopting journals). High quality pre-registered protocols that meet strict editorial criteria are then offered in principle acceptance, which guarantees publication of the results provided authors adhere to their pre-registered protocol, and provided various pre-specified quality standards are achieved in the final outcome.
For studies with a clear hypothesis, the Registered Reports format has four advantages compared with standard articles. First, it prevents publication bias by ensuring that editorial decisions are based on the theoretical importance and methodological rigour of a study, before research outcomes are known. Second, by requiring authors to pre-register their study methods and analysis plans in advance, it prevents common forms of research bias including p-hacking (selective reporting of statistically significant outcomes) and hindsight bias (presenting a hypothesis derived from unexpected results as though it was predicted in advance) while still welcoming unregistered analyses that are clearly labelled as exploratory or post hoc. Third, pre-study peer review enables flaws in study design and statistical analysis plans to be corrected before the research is undertaken, improving the quality and efficiency of the research process. Finally, because protocols are accepted in advance of data being collected, the format provides an incentive for researchers to conduct important replication studies and other novel, resource-intensive projects (e.g. involving multi-site consortia) — projects that might otherwise be too risky to attempt where the publishability of the outcome would be contingent on the results.
The Registered Reports concept can at first seem quite alien and is likely to prompt a number of questions. Many journals are accustomed to assessing the publishability of a scientific paper, at least in part, according to its results — a convention that Registered Reports explicitly challenges. In response the Center for Open Science has compiled an extensive Q&A that addresses all major concerns about the initiative, from the issue of ensuring high quality of the published papers, to fears that it could restrict exploration and serendipity, to questions about the citation impact (which is high, on average greater then the respective journal impact factor; see the ‘FAQ’ section at https://cos.io/rr/ and the attached fact sheet). All such concerns are addressed by robust safeguards and other features that have been built into the format.
From a practical point of view, Registered Reports are straightforward to set up within the architecture of a journal. Most publishers now have at least one journal under their umbrella that offers Registered Reports, making it straightforward to migrate the manuscript handling process across to other journals within the same publisher. We have also prepared example author guidelines and other documentation to make the transition as easy as possible (https://cos.io/rr/).
We are fortunate to have a great team on hand at the Center for Open Science, ready to provide additional assistance (freely of course). Please do not hesitate to contact them at email@example.com for additional information, it is a service-based organization established to support these practices.
On behalf of the many researchers who have expressed an interest in Registered Reports, we hope you will consider offering them at [journal or publisher]. You can find a fact sheet about Registered Reports for journal editors at https://osf.io/jbeus/ and attached to this email.
## Template 2, Specific Proposal for RR ##
Dear Dr [EDITOR NAME],
As you might know, pre-registration and Registered Reports are becoming increasingly popular publication processes. They are typically heralded as emphasizing strong methods and confirmatory research. Registered Reports differ from conventional empirical articles by performing part of the review process before researchers collect and analyze data (see https://cos.io/rr for details and list of adopting journals)
We have prepared a study that we think would be an excellent fit for [JOURNAL NAME] in the form of a Registered Report. However, to the best of our knowledge you have not yet published studies in the form of a Registered Report. We would like to ask you whether you might consider treating our study proposal as a Registered Report, perhaps as a pilot to test this new procedure?
To be specific, we are proposing that:
We submit a manuscript with the Introduction and Method sections, including hypotheses and a detailed analysis plan. Similar to a normal submission, the manuscript is sent out for peer-review. As no data have yet been collected, reviewers can suggest an improved methodology if deemed necessary. The reviewers will have access to all of the materials that we plan to use in the study. The paper will then (hopefully) be ‘conditionally accepted’, meaning that final publication will depend on whether the protocol was followed, but not on the direction of the results. Once completed, the full manuscript with the Results and Discussion will be submitted. As the majority of the paper will already have been peer-reviewed, this final submission typically requires little attention from reviewers. Because it will have been pre-registered, the study can be framed as a confirmatory study and readers will know that the results are not biased by selective reporting or other such (possibly unconscious) biases. You can find the Abstract of the manuscript at the end of this email.
Thank you for considering our request. If you have any questions about our request please let us know!