Reforming research funding: Combining editorial preregistration with grant peer review

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.