Date created: | Last Updated:

Category: Project

Description: Psychological scientists are increasingly using preregistration as a tool to increase the credibility of research findings. Many of the benefits of preregistration rest on the assumption that preregistered plans are followed perfectly. However, research suggests that this is the exception rather than the norm, and there are many reasons why researchers may deviate from their preregistered plans. Preregistration can still be a valuable tool, even in the presence of deviations, as long as those deviations are well-documented and transparently reported. Unfortunately, most preregistration deviations in psychology go unreported or are reported in unsystematic ways. The current paper offers a solution to this problem by providing a framework for transparent and standardized reporting of preregistration deviations, which was developed by drawing upon our own experiences with preregistration, existing unpublished templates, feedback from colleagues and reviewers, and the results of a survey of 34 psychology journal editors. This framework provides a clear template for what to do when things do not go as planned. We conclude by encouraging researchers to adopt this framework in their own preregistered research, and for journals to implement structural policies around the transparent reporting of preregistration deviations.