A survey of researchers’ attitudes to preregistration in animal research reveals multiple perceived barriers to adoption

Preregistration is arguably one of the most promising and potentially impactful Open Science practices. Defined as the a priori registration of study designs and analysis plans, preregistration has long been established as standard practice in clinical human research and is increasingly taken up in other fields of science. Despite growing evidence suggesting that preregistration can mitigate questionable research practices, and the existence of two platforms targeting animal studies, preregistration has remained uncommon in animal research. In light of a “reproducibility crisis” and calls for more transparency and rigor also in animal research, preregistration represents a potentially promising step forward. However, implementing such policies without understanding their impact carries potential risks. It is, therefore, essential to uncover animal researchers’ perspectives on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of preregistration before advancing its implementation. Here, we addressed this need as part of a comprehensive feasibility project on preregistration of animal experiments in Switzerland, with the aims to: (1) assess animal researchers’ experiences with preregistration; (2) examine their attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, intentions, motivations, and perceived obstacles regarding preregistration; (3) explore associations between these psychosocial constructs and relevant background characteristics; (4) identify perceived facilitators and barriers to preregistration; and (5) summarize researchers’ suggestions for improving preregistration. To this end, we conducted a preregistered, cross-sectional online survey among all registered study directors of ongoing animal experiments in Switzerland. Of 1,385 invited study directors, 418 completed the survey (30.2% return rate; 41% female; age M = 47.1, SD = 9.52). Of these, only 10% had preregistered studies before participating in the survey and 39.2% had never even heard of preregistration. Bureaucratic burden (77.6%), time costs (71.4%), and low flexibility (65.7%) were the most common reported barriers to preregistration. On average, participants reported rather unfavorable attitudes towards preregistration, negative subjective norms, relatively low perceived behavioral control, weak intention, and limited motivation to preregister, along with high perceived obstacles. Participants who had never preregistered a study, as well as those with more research experience, had more negative scores on all assessed psychosocial constructs related to preregistration. Our findings offer guidance on promising measures to enhance acceptance of preregistration among animal researchers, including raising awareness, offering education and training, and facilitating the procedure of preregistration.