The evidence-based community (including BITSS) has held up preregistration as a solution to the
problem of research credibility, but—ironically—without any evidence that preregistration works. The
goal of our proposed research is to provide an evidentiary base for assessing whether PAPs—as they are
currently used—are effective in achieving their stated objectives of preventing “fishing,” reducing scope
for the post-hoc adjustment of research hypotheses, and solving the “file drawer problem.” We aim to
do this by analyzing a random sample of 300 studies that have been pre-registered on the AEA and EGAP
registration platforms, evenly distributed across studies that are still in progress, completed and
resulting in a publicly available paper, and completed but (as far as we can determine) not resulting in a
publicly available paper. Given the significant costs of researcher time and energy in preparing PAPs, and
the implications that adhering to them may have on opportunities for breakthroughs that come from
unexpected, surprise results (Laitin 2013; Olken 2015), it is critical to take stock of whether PAPs are
working.
