There is a growing exploration of how Registered Reports can benefit individual researchers and wider research fields as part of a wider shift towards open research principles and practices. In ‘Misaligned incentives in mental health research – the case for Registered Reports’, Baldwin examines this in the context of mental health research, arguing that Registered Reports (RRs) can be a valuable solution to misaligned incentive structures in the field. However, this original piece was generally inclined towards how such incentives and the use of RRs can play out in the context of quantitative research. Such reflection is valuable, but to examine the case for RRs in mental health research as a field, we must also explore such practices within the context of qualitative research. In this commentary, we therefore expand and reframe this discussion to make the case for RRs in qualitative mental health research. We explore the place for qualitative research in the mental health research field and examine possibilities for how RRs fit within principles and practices in such methods. We discuss the various benefits and challenges of RRs in qualitative research, reflecting on our experiences as authors and reviewers of qualitative RRs and exploring how research infrastructure can facilitate engagement with this publishing approach.

中文翻译：

---

评论：扩大定性心理健康研究的注册报告视野：对“心理健康研究中错位的激励措施——注册报告的案例”的回应和扩展，鲍德温（2023 年）


越来越多的人探索注册报告如何使个人研究人员和更广泛的研究领域受益，作为向开放研究原则和实践的更广泛转变的一部分。在“心理健康研究中错位的激励措施——注册报告的案例”中，鲍德温在心理健康研究的背景下对此进行了研究，认为注册报告 （RR） 可以成为解决该领域错位激励结构的宝贵解决方案。然而，这篇原始文章通常倾向于这种激励措施和 RR 的使用如何在定量研究的背景下发挥作用。这种反思是有价值的，但要考察 RRs 在心理健康研究这一领域的案例，我们还必须在定性研究的背景下探索这种做法。因此，在本评论中，我们扩展和重新构建了这一讨论，以证明 RR 在定性心理健康研究中是合理的。我们探讨了心理健康研究领域定性研究的场所，并研究了 RR 如何适应此类方法的原则和实践的可能性。我们讨论了 RR 在定性研究中的各种好处和挑战，反思了我们作为定性 RR 的作者和审稿人的经验，并探讨了研究基础设施如何促进与这种出版方法的互动。