> It won't solve the publication bias people will still change the hypothesis or the test after measurements are done. As a Psychology student, this is a well-

> It won't solve the publication bias people will still change the hypothesis or the test after measurements are done. As a Psychology student, this is a well-known initiative: https://cos.io/prereg/ https://cos.io/prereg/ (Though I can't confirm or deny its widespread usage.) The publication bias is harder, and pre-registration won't solve this. But I think this is a separate issue, and it's important to address each issue in its own right. I've seen the proposal from TFA before and with my very limited knowledge, I'm still fairly certain it will never come to pass in Psychology, as nearly half of all modern studies have reproducibility issues (!). It would be beneficial to our field, in the way that a band-aid is beneficial to a gaping wound, but it would require a lot more rigor than has been evidently been displayed so far (and more rigor is more work, and time is limited). So... Don't hold your breath. (Sorry if my comment sounds pessimistic, I don't know much and I'm open to being corrected. I still have enough critical thought to be skeptical of some researchers' dedication to intellectual rigor.)