English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The debate about preregistration of protocols of epidemiologic studies had become an intellectually divisive issue, with strong ‘pro’ and ‘contra’ positions. The pro side, of which the commentary by Stafania Boccia in this issue of the journal is an example, is unflinching: all observational research needs to be preregistered to make it credible and manageable, in particular to root out the possibility of selection bias. The great exemplar is the randomized controlled trial (RCT). This pro side has never paid attention to the reasons why the contra side thinks that the need for registration and the need for sticking to the preregistered protocol may depend on the issue that is researched. The contra side does not tire to point out that when one tries to explain how Nature works, one is chasing a problem; when chasing a problem one tries all kinds of approaches, and it does not matter what the original thoughts were and how and why ideas have evolved. The only thing that matters is the final proposition to the scientific community: an explanation together with the corresponding data. The scientific community will then decide whether the ideas that are presented are useful as a start or a continuation of further expansion of knowledge.1,2 That is …

Preregistration: when shall we start the real discussion?