Reforming research funding: Combining editorial preregistration with grant peer review

TL;DR

This paper proposes integrating editorial preregistration with grant peer review to improve research quality, reduce bias, and promote transparency and replication in scientific funding processes.

Contribution

It introduces a novel framework combining preregistration with grant review, aiming to enhance methodological rigor and transparency in research funding.

Findings

Reduces reviewer burden and bias.

Strengthens methodological rigor and transparency.

Supports replication and high-risk research.

Abstract

Competitive grant funding is associated with high costs and a potential bias to favor conservative research. This comment proposes integrating editorial preregistration, in the form of registered reports, into grant peer review processes as a reform strategy. Linking funding decisions to in principle accepted study protocols would reduce reviewer burden, strengthen methodological rigor, and provide an institutional foundation for (more) replication, theory driven research, and high risk research. Our proposal also minimizes strategic proposal writing and ensures scholarly output through the publication of preregistered protocols, regardless of funding outcomes. Possible implementation models include direct coupling of journal acceptance with funding, co review mechanisms, voucher systems, and lotteries. While challenges remain in aligning journal and funding agency procedures, the integration of preregistration and funding offers a promising pathway toward a more transparent and efficient research ecosystem.