petersuberA new study estimates that 58% of studies #preregistered on #OSF before November 2017 have been conducted but not yet publicly shared. "Emails asking researchers why studies remained unpublished, logistical issues (e.g., lack of time, researchers changing jobs) were the most common cause, followed by null results and rejections during peer review."
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/25152459241296031
PS: I'm sympathetic to those short on time or caught up in job changes. But those pointing to #nullresults didn't understand the point of #preregistration.
Those whose submissions were rejected by journals could still share the results as #preprints.
Mela Eckenfels@petersuber like if knowing there were no results weren't as important as knowing the results. ðŸ˜
César Pallares 
@Mela @petersuber I blame to the lack of good formation on philosophy of research and epistomology. Besides the #publishorperish culture
Richard J. Acton@petersuber the difficulty publishing pre-registered results is another reason why I like the registered reports model, as they come with a commitment to publish the results.