Researchers' perspectives on preregistration in animal research

Abstract

Preregistration is arguably one of the most promising and impactful Open Science practices. Defined as the a priori registration of study designs and analysis plans, preregistration has long been established as standard practice in clinical human research and is increasingly taken up in other fields of science. Despite growing evidence suggesting that preregistration can mitigate questionable research practices, and the existence of two platforms targeting animal studies, preregistration remains uncommon in animal research. In light of the reproducibility crisis and calls for more transparency and rigor also in animal research, preregistration represents a potentially promising step forward. However, implementing such policies without understanding their impact carries potential risks. It is, therefore, essential to uncover the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of preregistration before advancing its implementation in animal research. This current study addressed this need as part of a larger feasibility project on preregistration of animal experiments in Switzerland, and aimed to: 1) assess the researchers experiences with preregistration; 2) examine their attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, intentions, motivations, and perceived obstacles regarding preregistration; 3) explore associations between these psychosocial constructs and relevant background characteristics; 4) identify perceived facilitators and barriers to preregistration; and 5) summarize researchers suggestions for improving preregistration. A preregistered cross-sectional online survey was conducted among all registered study directors of ongoing animal experiments in Switzerland. Of the 1,385 invited study directors, 418 completed the survey (30.2% return rate; 41% female; age M = 47.1, SD = 9.52). Among them, 39.2% had never heard of preregistration, and only 10% had preregistered studies before participating in the survey. Bureaucratic burden (77.6%), time costs (71.4%), and low flexibility (65.7%) were the most common reported barriers to preregistration. On average, participants described rather unfavorable attitudes towards preregistration, negative subjective norms, relatively low perceived behavioral control, weak intention, and limited motivation to preregister, along with high perceived obstacles. Participants who had never preregistered a study, as well as those with more research experience, showed more negative scores on all assessed psychosocial constructs related to preregistration. Our findings offer guidance on promising measures to enhance acceptance of preregistration among animal researchers, including raising awareness, offering education and training, and facilitating procedures, to enhance the acceptance of preregistration among animal researchers.