The evidence-based community has championed the public registration of pre-analysis plans (PAPs) as a solution to the problem of research credibility, but without any evidence that PAPs actually bolster the credibility of research. Ofosu and Posner analyze a representative sample of 195 PAPs from the American Economic Association (AEA) and Evidence in Governance and Politics (EGAP) registration platforms to assess whether PAPs are sufficiently clear, precise and comprehensive to be able to achieve their objectives of preventing “fishing” and reducing the scope for post-hoc adjustment of research hypotheses. They also analyze a subset of 93 PAPs from projects that have resulted in publicly available papers to ascertain how faithfully they adhere to their pre-registered specifications and hypotheses. They find significant variation in the extent to which PAPs are accomplishing the goals they were designed to achieve.

Publications associated with this project:

• Ofosu, George K., and Daniel N. Posner. “Pre-Analysis Plans: An Early Stocktaking.” Perspectives on Politics (March 2021) ed, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592721000931
• Ofosu, George K., and Daniel N. Posner. “Do Pre-Analysis Plans Hamper Publication?” AEA Papers and Proceedings 110 (May 2020): 70–74. https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20201079.