01666nas a2200241   4500000000100000008004100001260001500042653002300057653002000080653002100100653002400121653001900145100001900164700002200183700001800205700002600223245005900249856005000308300001200358490000600370520103900376022000901415       2024                            d  c2024-12-3110aRegistered Reports10apreregistration10aPublication Bias10aselective reporting10asevere testing1 aDaniël Lakens1 aCristian Mesquida1 aSajedeh Rasti1 aMassimiliano Ditroilo00aThe benefits of preregistration and Registered Reports  uhttps://doi.org/10.1080/2833373X.2024.2376046  a23760460 v23 aPractices that introduce systematic bias are common in most scientific disciplines, including toxicology. Selective reporting of results and publication bias are two of the most prevalent sources of bias and lead to unreliable scientific claims. Preregistration and Registered Reports are recent developments that aim to counteract systematic bias and allow other scientists to transparently evaluate how severely a claim has been tested. We review metascientific research confirming that preregistration and Registered Reports achieve their goals, and have additional benefits, such as improving the quality of studies. We then reflect on criticisms of preregistration. Beyond the valid concern that the mere presence of a preregistration may be mindlessly used as a proxy for high quality, we identify conflicting viewpoints, several misunderstandings, and a general lack of empirical support for the criticisms that have been raised. We conclude with general recommendations to increase the quality and practice of preregistration.  anull