Consistent and Precise Description of Research Outputs Could Improve Implementation of Open Science

In 2013, the Center for Open Science proposed that journal articles be awarded “badges” for engaging in open-science practices, including preregistration. In 2015, the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines (TOP 2015) promoted preregistration of studies and analysis plans. Since then, the term “preregistration” has been used to describe different research outputs created at different times—sometimes, but not always, including study registration. Following a review of evidence about TOP 2015 implementation, including evidence that adherence could not be rated reliably, the TOP Guidelines Advisory Board updated these guidelines (TOP 2025). The TOP 2025 guidelines no longer use the term “preregistration.” Instead, TOP 2025 disambiguates specific research outputs, such as registrations, study protocols, analysis plans, code, and other research materials. TOP 2025 also explains that researchers should describe the time at which outputs are created and shared in relation to key study activities. In this article, we explain why adopting the terminology used in TOP 2025 and describing the times at which specific research outputs are created and shared will enhance understanding and support better implementation and reporting of open science.