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：扩大注册报告对定性心理健康研究的视野：对“心理健康研究中激励措施失调——注册报告案例”的回应和延伸，鲍德温（2023）


人们越来越多地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更广泛转变的一部分。在“心理健康研究中的激励措施错位——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）可以成为该领域激励结构错位的一个有价值的解决方案。然而，这篇原创文章总体上倾向于探讨此类激励措施和 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，但为了检验心理健康研究领域中 RR 的案例，我们还必须在定性研究的背景下探索此类实践。因此，在本评论中，我们扩展并重新构建了这一讨论，以证明 RR 在定性心理健康研究中的应用。我们探讨了心理健康研究领域中定性研究的地位，并研究了 RR 如何适应此类方法的原则和实践的可能性。我们讨论了定性研究中 RR 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，并探索研究基础设施如何促进这种出版方法的参与。