Scholarlink

Background <p>The proportion of studies with results supporting their hypotheses has been implausibly high in sports science, suggesting the widespread presence of questionable research practices (QRPs). Preregistration is recommended to mitigate QRPs.</p> Objectives <p>The aim of this study was to evaluate the uptake of preregistration in sports science journals, and its association with the proportion of supported hypotheses. The influence of journal quartile on these factors was also examined. Differences in hypothesis reporting between published manuscripts and original preregistrations were also explored.</p> Methods <p>A total of 2006 original research articles published from 19 journals in 2024 were included, of which 201 (10.0%) were preregistered, and 1205 provided a hypothesis (60.0%). Logistic regression analyses assessed whether preregistration frequency and the proportion of supported hypotheses varied across journal quartiles (i.e., quartile 1, 2, 3, and 4, as ranked by SCImago).</p> Results <p>The proportion of preregistered studies that had results supporting their hypotheses (45%) were significantly lower than non-preregistered studies (56%) (<i>X</i><sup>2</sup> (1) 5. 5978; <i>P</i> = 0.018), although the effect size was negligible (<i>V</i> = 0.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01, 0.13). Quartile 3 and 4 journals had less preregistrations (odds ratio [OR] = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.17, 0.41) and supported hypotheses (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.55, 0.97) than quartile 1 journals. Of 134 preregistered papers with a hypothesis, 93 (69.4%) either did not have a hypothesis in their original preregistration or presented a different hypothesis from what was reported in the preregistration.</p> Conclusions <p>The uptake of preregistration in sports science is low, and its effectiveness is limited, possibly owing to researchers not adhering to preregistered research plans and adopting QRPs.</p> Preregistration <p>This study was prospectively preregistered on the Open Science Framework <a href="https://osf.io/c8jfm/files/osfstorage">https://osf.io/c8jfm/files/osfstorage</a>).</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The Uptake of Preregistration, and Its Impact on the Proportion of Supported Hypotheses, in Sports Science

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月8日

查看全文
  • Hunter Bennett,
  • Henry Blake,
  • Noah d’Unienville,
  • James Murray,
  • Jordan Fox

摘要

Background

The proportion of studies with results supporting their hypotheses has been implausibly high in sports science, suggesting the widespread presence of questionable research practices (QRPs). Preregistration is recommended to mitigate QRPs.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the uptake of preregistration in sports science journals, and its association with the proportion of supported hypotheses. The influence of journal quartile on these factors was also examined. Differences in hypothesis reporting between published manuscripts and original preregistrations were also explored.

Methods

A total of 2006 original research articles published from 19 journals in 2024 were included, of which 201 (10.0%) were preregistered, and 1205 provided a hypothesis (60.0%). Logistic regression analyses assessed whether preregistration frequency and the proportion of supported hypotheses varied across journal quartiles (i.e., quartile 1, 2, 3, and 4, as ranked by SCImago).

Results

The proportion of preregistered studies that had results supporting their hypotheses (45%) were significantly lower than non-preregistered studies (56%) (X2 (1) 5. 5978; P = 0.018), although the effect size was negligible (V = 0.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01, 0.13). Quartile 3 and 4 journals had less preregistrations (odds ratio [OR] = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.17, 0.41) and supported hypotheses (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.55, 0.97) than quartile 1 journals. Of 134 preregistered papers with a hypothesis, 93 (69.4%) either did not have a hypothesis in their original preregistration or presented a different hypothesis from what was reported in the preregistration.

Conclusions

The uptake of preregistration in sports science is low, and its effectiveness is limited, possibly owing to researchers not adhering to preregistered research plans and adopting QRPs.

Preregistration

This study was prospectively preregistered on the Open Science Framework https://osf.io/c8jfm/files/osfstorage).