A call for consistent and precise use of “registered” and related terms to describe open science practices

Researchers cannot be expected to engage in open science practices unless they understand and agree what those practices comprise. Precise use of registered, preregistered, and Registered Reports could increase understanding and disclosure of open science practices, facilitate research about open science practices, and improve the conduct of psychological research. We describe how the term preregistered has been used to describe a variety of research practices done for different reasons at different times. By comparison, registration has been defined coherently and precisely in clinical medicine. Related practices (e.g., sharing study protocols, sharing statistical analysis plans) and the timing of these practices (e.g., prior to data collection, after analysis) can be described using plain language. Researchers should stop using the word preregistration to describe different practices done for different purposes at different times. Instead, preregister should be used only to describe entering a research plan in a register before undertaking a study that collects new data (e.g., prior to collecting survey data, prior to enrolling participants in an experiment). The broader term, registration, may be used to describe both research that collects new data and research that uses preexisting data, and it may be used to describe research registered before or after critical events have occurred. Registered Reports should be registered in a registry; otherwise, manuscripts undergoing two- stage peer review with in-principle acceptance should not be called “registered”. Consistency and precision could improve reporting open science practices, improve understanding of their benefits and limitations, and help researchers implement these practices.