OnCo
ideasIdea

Registered reports for cancer biology: the plan is peer-reviewed before the result

Journals agree to publish a study based on the quality of the question and plan, before anyone knows the answer. That removes the pressure to make results look positive.

Registered reports, adopted by over 300 journals mostly in psychology and neuroscience, reduce positive-result bias dramatically (around 44% positive results versus over 90% in conventional articles in one analysis). Cancer biology journals have barely adopted the format. A concerted push by the major cancer journals to offer registered reports for confirmatory preclinical studies (the last experiment before an investigational new drug application, for instance) would change the incentive at the point where it matters most for translation.

Hypothesis
Registered reports in cancer biology will report a positive-result rate below 60%, compared with above 85% in matched conventional articles, and their findings will replicate at a higher rate.
Rationale
The format directly removes the mechanisms of bias: outcome switching, selective reporting and publication bias.
What would test it
Three cancer journals launch the format; compare positive-result rates and replication of the first 100 registered reports with matched conventional papers.
Maturity
early clinical
Who has to act
research
Cost to try
Small (under $1M)
Years to first evidence
2
Bottlenecks it attacks

Connected

5top

Pages like this

not linked directly; found by shared links