Why pre-register?
Pre-registration consists in specifying key elements of a study plan before data are observed and time-stamping this plan in a public repository. Its purpose is not to restrict research flexibility, but to clearly distinguish decisions made in advance from those taken after seeing the data, thereby improving transparency and interpretability of results. In psychology, pre-registration is now widely recognised as a core Open Science practice, as it can reduce bias in analytic choices and make the research process more openly inspectable.
The MRB was established to support researchers precisely at this stage of the workflow. Its role is to provide structured guidance on research questions, design, sampling, measurement and analysis planning within a pre-registration framework. For this reason, the MRB prioritises improving clarity and transparency in pre-registrations, rather than offering exhaustive support on every possible detail.
Templates play a central role in this approach. Even when standard pre-registration formats are used, required information can be extensive and unevenly organised across subfields. The MRB templates therefore function as a shared structure: they help researchers report the information reviewers typically need in a systematic and organised way, reduce unnecessary back-and-forth during review and facilitate interdisciplinary evaluation. Overall, the templates are designed to make pre-registrations easier to complete, easier to review and more consistent with best practices in transparent reporting.
How we developed the MRB pre-registration templates
The development of the templates followed a collaborative and iterative path. The initial version emerged from the work among the MRB Project Coordinators and the Set-up Team, in close collaboration with the collaborators listed on the website. This early phase was guided by two main considerations already outlined in the MRB set-up. On the one hand, the process was inspired by the Eindhoven experience, while being explicitly designed to remain feasible and scalable in the local context. On the other hand, the goal was to support researchers in producing pre-registrations that meet clear standards of transparency and methodological clarity, while keeping participation voluntary and the review process constructive.
The next step consisted of a qualitative evaluation phase, built around a meeting where researchers from multiple departments were present. During this meeting, the MRB team shared the intention to run a pilot study, namely to accompany the pre-registration of an actual study conducted within the School of Psychology. At the same time, the initial version of the templates was reviewed in detail. Participants jointly discussed both the content to be included and the way it should be organised, reasoning together about which information was essential, how it should be structured and how the templates could best support researchers in articulating their study plans. This collective discussion was meant to ensure that the templates were grounded in real research practices and could function as practical tools under realistic constraints, rather than remaining abstract or purely formal documents.
Qualitative feedback was then complemented by a quantitative evaluation. A structured online questionnaire was spread among researchers who agreed to take part in the pilot study team. This phase allowed the MRB to systematically assess perceived clarity, usability and structure of different template sections, while also ensuring transparency in how feedback was collected and how revision decisions were informed, in line with the board’s broader Open Science principles.
Finally, the templates were revised and refined by integrating input from all stages of the process. The current version of the templates thus reflects a full cycle of proposal, discussion, evaluation and revision, grounded in community involvement. This approach is consistent with the broader rationale behind our Methodological Review Board: investing effort before data collection can help identify and address foreseeable design and analysis issues before they compromise a study.
The current template workflow: Step 1 and Step 2
The updated template is currently being tested and is still in progress
This page provides access to two online tools, referred to as Step 1 and Step 2. Dividing the workflow into successive steps serves a clear purpose: it keeps the initial request concise, while ensuring that the MRB receives the essential information needed to begin an efficient and informed review.
In the first stage, researchers are asked to complete the Step 1 template, which covers the foundational components of the pre-registration, corresponding to Sections A and B. This step is designed to capture the identity of the study and its methodological backbone, providing enough information for the MRB to understand what is being tested, how the study is designed, and which constraints shape the research plan. In the second stage, researchers complete Step 2. This step extends the pre-registration in a way that is tailored to the specific characteristics of the study. Based on the design, measures and planned analyses, the MRB assigns the relevant subsequent sections, ensuring that researchers are not asked to complete material that is unnecessary or ill-suited to their project. This adaptive structure reflects the MRB’s commitment to feasibility and scalability, while maintaining high standards of clarity and methodological transparency.
Taken together, Step 1 and Step 2 are intended to make pre-registration easier to initiate, easier to review and easier to trust. They provide a transparent pathway from an initial study idea to a structured pre-registration that can be evaluated by an independent reader, while keeping the process supportive, interdisciplinary and fully aligned with Open Science principles.