Research Preregistration in Political Science
The Case, Counterarguments, and a Response to Critiques
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12377002 |
|---|---|
| Authors | James E Monogan (0000-0002-1968-6052, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2015 |
| Volume | 48 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 425-429 |
| Publication date | 2015-06-19 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | PS Political Science & Politics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1049-0965 • E-ISSN: 1537-5935 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s1049096515000189 |
| OpenAlex | W1582014323 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 19 |
| References cited | 21 |
This article describes the current debate on the practice of preregistration in political science—that is, publicly releasing a research design before observing outcome data. The case in favor of preregistration maintains that it can restrain four potential causes of publication bias, clearly distinguish deductive and inductive studies, add transparency regarding a researcher’s motivation, and liberate researchers who may be pressured to find specific results. Concerns about preregistration maintain that it is less suitable for the study of historical data, could reduce data exploration, may not allow for contextual problems that emerge in field research, and may increase the difficulty of finding true positive results. This article makes the case that these concerns can be addressed in preregistered studies, and it offers advice to those who would like to pursue study registration in their own work
Economics · Engineering ethics · Epistemology · Field (mathematics · Outcome (game theory · Political science · Politics · Public relations · Transparency (behavior · Work (physics · Advanced Causal Inference Techniques · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Law · Psychology · Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Standard Operating Procedures
Reducing Political Bias in Political Science Estimates
The Oxford Handbook of American Political Development
The Science of Open (Communication) Science
A Dialogue with the Data
Shadowing as a Tool for Studying Political Elites
Publication Biases in Replication Studies
The impact of expiration dates labels on hedonic markets for perishable products
Can governments use Get Out The Vote letters to solve Europe’s turnout crisis? Evidence from a field experiment
Can Results-Free Review Reduce Publication Bias? The Results and Implications of a Pilot Study
Statistically Valid Inferences from Privacy-Protected Data
Understanding the effect of term limits on voter turnout
Black and White discrimination in the United States
Reference Rot
A Reply to “Reducing Political Bias in Political Science Estimates”
The State Legislative Elections of 2018
Anxious Voters in the 2016 U.S. Election
Transparency, Replication, and Cumulative Learning
Reducing bias, increasing transparency and calibrating confidence with preregistration
Recommendations for Increasing Replicability in Psychology
Reshaping Institutions
Registered Reports
Public policy for the poor? A randomised assessment of the Mexican universal health insurance programme
False-Positive Psychology
The structure of scientific revolutions
Do Statistical Reporting Standards Affect What Is Published? Publication Bias in Two Leading Political Science Journals
A “politically robust” experimental design for public policy evaluation, with application to the Mexican Universal Health Insurance program
The Insignificance of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing
Registration and Replication
Preregistration of Studies and Mock Reports
Fishing, Commitment, and Communication
Fisheries Management
A Case for Registering Studies of Political Outcomes
Publication Bias in Two Political Behavior Literatures
Openness in Political Science
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results
Procedural transparency and the credibility of election surveys
An Introduction to the Dataverse Network as an Infrastructure for Data Sharing
| Unique citing works | 19 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,58 |
| Citation span | 2014 - 2024 (11) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 17 |