Common myths

Transparency strengthens every method. Transparency is not method-specific. Transparency allows the research community to scrutinise, critique, and build upon work. It is a meta-principle that enhances the credibility, trustworthiness, and rigour of research regardless of epistemological stance or methodological approach.

Whether you're conducting experiments, surveys, archival work, interviews, ethnography, case studies, or mixed methods research, transparency makes your work stronger. It allows others to understand how claims were generated, what decisions were made, and how interpretations were justified. This clarity enhances credibility, trust, and cumulative knowledge.

Open research does not impose quantitative standards on qualitative work. Rather, it recognises a shared principle: readers deserve to see how knowledge claims were developed. Transparency can look different across paradigms, but the underlying value is the same.

For further information, please read:

• Aguinis, H., & Solarino, A. M. (2019). Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants. Strategic management journal, 40(8), 1291-1315.
• Humphreys, L., Lewis Jr, N. A., Sender, K., & Won, A. S. (2021). Integrating qualitative methods and open science: Five principles for more trustworthy research. Journal of communication, 71(5), 855-874.

The fear of being "scooped" is common, but evidence shows otherwise.

Time-stamped preregistration and data sharing establish priority (intellectual ownership). They provide public proof of when ideas were developed. Research on preprints shows no systematic evidence of scooping and suggests faster dissemination and broader impact (e.g., reaching scholars from the Global Majority who often do not have access to publication behind paywalls).

For competitive fields, embargo options offer protection. You can preregister your work now to secure your timestamp while keeping the record private for a defined period until after publication. In practice, most researchers share data after publishing their primary findings.

Transparency does not invite theft. It documents your contribution, signals credibility, and can foster collaboration and impact.

For further information, please read:

• Gomes, D. G., Pottier, P., Crystal-Ornelas, R., Hudgins, E. J., Foroughirad, V., Sánchez-Reyes, L. L., ... & Gaynor, K. M. (2022). Why don't we share data and code? Perceived barriers and benefits to public archiving practices. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 289(1987).

A map doesn’t stop you from exploring. Preregistration is a plan, not a prison. It creates clarity, not constraints.

Open research practices distinguish between exploratory and confirmatory analyses; they do not eliminate exploration. When you preregister, you outline your planned confirmatory analyses and state in advance that you may also conduct exploratory analyses. Both are reported and valued, but readers can clearly see which is which.

Registered Reports even include a dedicated "Exploratory Analyses" section in the final publication.

The goal isn't to stop you from following unexpected findings or trying new analyses. The goal is to prevent presenting exploratory results as if they had been predicted all along. When exploration is mistaken for confirmation, false positives increase and replicability suffers.

Far from constraining discovery, open research strengthens it. Exploratory findings no longer need to be hidden or reframed as confirmatory tests. Instead, they are transparently presented for what they are: valuable, hypothesis-generating insights.

For more information, please read:

• Blog: https://www.cos.io/blog/preregistration-plan-not-prison
• Dirnagl, U. (2020). Preregistration of exploratory research: Learning from the golden age of discovery. PLoS biology, 18(3), e3000690.
• Frankenhuis, W.E., & Nettle, D. (2018). Open Science is liberating and can foster creativity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 439-447.