Abstract:There is growing awareness of reproducibility concerns within the scientific literature; whilst journals continue to be filled with seemingly beautiful results, teams of researchers are lifting the lid on the veracity of scientific claims and the replicability of findings in a growing number of disciplines. Highlighting the global scale of this issue, the Open Science Collaboration (<a href="#">2015</a>) performed direct replications of 100 psychological research studies and found that whilst 97% of the original studies reported significant results, this declined to 36% for replications of these. Moreover, the average effect size of the replications was half the magnitude of the average across original studies. Several human decision-making factors have been proposed to underlie irreproducibility, such as selective reporting and questionable research practices (QRPs; Simmons et al. <a href="#">2011</a>; John et al. <a href="#">2012</a>) fueled by pressures to achieve novel, surprising results and incentive structures that reward quantity over quality (Giner-Sorolla <a href="#">2012</a>; Frith <a href="#">2020</a>; Munafò et al. <a href="#">2020</a>). As can be seen in <a href="#F0001">Figure 1</a>, there are many threats that can arise at each stage of the hypothetico-deductive scientific process, which can undermine the robustness of published research and constrain knowledge accumulation. In their 'manifesto for reproducible science', Munafò et al. (<a href="#">2017</a>) propose five measures that target these threats with the goal of improving research: (1) methods, (2) reporting and dissemination, (3) reproducibility, (4) evaluation, and (5) incentives. Adoption of open science practices will allow many of these measures to be achieved and calls for their implementation in addiction science are becoming louder (Heirene <a href="#">2021</a>; Louderback et al. <a href="#">2021</a>; Pennington et al. <a href="#">2021</a>). However, to be successful, academic journals also need to adapt and recentre their focus on scientific rigor rather than the metamorphosis of study results. In this Editorial, we introduce two types of Registered Reports (RRs) that satisfy all these measures and highlight our commitment by offering these publishing tracks to authors through ART. We first outline the 'traditional' RR format (which ART has offered since 2019) and its associated advantages, followed by the introduction of a new initiative launched in April 2021 – Peer Community In Registered Reports (PCI RR).

Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: the transparent Psi project

Estimating the Prevalence of Transparency and Reproducibility-Related Research Practices in Psychology (2014–2017)

Irreproducibility in Searches of Scientific Literature: A Comparative Analysis.

Assessing the Transparency of Methods in Scientific Reporting

Data from a Pre-Publication Independent Replication Initiative Examining Ten Moral Judgement Effects

The reproducibility of statistical results in psychological research: An investigation using unpublished raw data.

Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

Why Most Research Findings About Psi Are False: The Replicability Crisis, the Psi Paradox and the Myth of Sisyphus

Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015

Reshaping the publication process: Addiction Research and Theory joins Peer Community In Registered Reports

The Psychological Science Accelerator: Advancing Psychology through a Distributed Collaborative Network

Giving Away the Science of School Psychology

Efforts to enhance reproducibility in a human performance research project

The “replication crisis” and trust in psychological science: How reforms shape public trust in psychology

Quality, Replicability, and Transparency in Research in Social Psychology

A discipline-wide investigation of the replicability of Psychology papers over the past two decades

Reproducibility Made Easy: A Tool for Methodological Transparency and Efficient Standardized Reporting based on the proposed MRSinMRS Consensus

Changes in methodological study characteristics in psychology between 2010-2021

Crowdsourcing Hypothesis Tests: Making Transparent How Design Choices Shape Research Results.

ReproduceMe: Lessons from a pilot project on computational reproducibility

Initial Evidence of Research Quality of Registered Reports Compared to the Traditional Publishing Model