Preregistration was introduced in response to the replication crisis to reduce false-positive findings by limiting researchers' analytic discretion.

Is it true that Preregistration was introduced in response to the replication crisis to reduce false-positive findings by limiting researchers' analytic discretion?

Unclear. One source links the replication crisis to researchers adopting preregistration as an Open Science practice, and another describes post-crisis statistical reforms aimed at reducing false positives, but neither directly establishes that preregistration was introduced specifically to limit analytic discretion and reduce false-positive findings.

Verdict: PARTIAL LEAN · 2 sources for, 1 against · Last checked 2 Oct 2026

The private library was unavailable for some searches in this check. Missing library results are not evidence against the claim.

The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes - PMC Lock. (n.d.). pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-023-00003-2

Liu, Y. (2025). Why Are Research Findings Supported by Experimental Data with High Probability Often False? --Critical Analysis of the Replication Crisis and Statistical Bias in Scientific Literature. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202507.1953.v1

Iris, Ž. & Aleksandra, L. (2023). Replication studies and Open Science practices at the Laboratory for research of individual differences (LIRA). zenodo.org. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7987197