Comparing positive rates in traditional articles and registered reports within sport and exercise science: A stage 2 registered report

This Stage 2 registered report analyzed the rates at which hypotheses were supported in registered reports versus traditional publications within sport and exercise science. A title and abstract search using the term “registered report∗” conducted in late 2024 yielded 4235 records from PubMed and 1011 from Scopus. After removing duplicates, 4693 records were screened, and 14 full texts were reviewed independently by two authors. Ten registered reports that included at least one hypothesis were identified, resulting in 41 hypotheses. By matching journal and publication year, 59 traditional articles were selected, yielding 162 hypotheses. When restricted to the first hypothesis, as in prior research, the support rates were 70 % for registered reports and 86 % for traditional articles, a marginally significant difference (p = .095). When all hypotheses were included, the support rates were 54 % and 79 % for registered reports and traditional publications, respectively—a statistically significant difference (p < .001). These findings provide initial evidence that, similar to the field of psychology, registered reports in sport and exercise science are less likely to report conclusions supporting the stated hypotheses compared to traditionally published counterparts. Exploratory analyses showed that the difference in positive findings between psychology and sport and exercise for traditional articles was statistically significant (p = .014). However, this finding should be interpreted with caution due to potential confounding factors, including differences in publication periods, study selection strategies, and whether journal matching was applied.