Abstract
Background. Although preregistration can reduce researcher bias and increase transparency in primary research settings, it is less applicable to secondary data analysis. An alternative method that affords additional protection from researcher bias, which cannot be gained from conventional forms of preregistration alone, is an Explore and Confirm Analysis Workflow (ECAW). In this workflow, a data management organization initially provides access to only a subset of their dataset to researchers who request it. The researchers then prepare an analysis script based on the subset of data, upload the analysis script to a registry, and then receive access to the full dataset. ECAWs aim to achieve similar goals to preregistration, but make access to the full dataset contingent on compliance. The present survey aimed to garner information from the research community where ECAWs could be applied-employing the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) as a case example. Methods. We emailed a Web-based survey to researchers who had previously applied for access to ALSPAC's transgenerational observational dataset. Results. We received 103 responses, for a 9% response rate. The results suggest that-at least among our sample of respondents-ECAWs hold the potential to serve their intended purpose and appear relatively acceptable. For example, only 10% of respondents disagreed that ALSPAC should run a study on ECAWs (versus 55% who agreed). However, as many as 26% of respondents agreed that they would be less willing to use ALSPAC data if they were required to use an ECAW (versus 45% who disagreed). Conclusion. Our data and findings provide information for organizations and individuals interested in implementing ECAWs and related interventions. Preregistration. https://osf.io/g2fw5 Deviations from the preregistration are outlined in electronic supplementary material A.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 230568 |
Journal | Royal Society Open Science |
Volume | 10 |
Issue number | 10 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 11 Oct 2023 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:R.T.T. is supported by a general support grant awarded to METRICS from Arnold Ventures and a postdoctoral fellowship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. A.S. was supported by an Amsterdam Brain and Cognition project grant (grant ref. ABC PG 22 January 2022) ‘From rigid theory to cognitive models: a framework to study individual differences in meaning representations’. The UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome (grant ref. 217065/Z/19/Z) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC. This publication is the work of the authors and R.T.T. will serve as guarantor for the contents of this paper. The funders have no role in the preparation of this paper or the decision to publish. Acknowledgements
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors.