 Okay, good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Welcome to this webinar about the OSF Registry Service. We're delighted to have you and present to you this new release from the Center for Open Science today. My name is Brian Nosek, I'm Executive Director of the Center for Open Science and joining me in presenting today is going to be Nikki Pfeiffer, who is Director of Product at COS who will be presenting the OSF Registry Service and David Meller, who is Director of Policy at COS, who will be giving an overview of what stakeholders are doing with regard to our registration using registries and some enhancements of some of the services that are underway and in development in the community. So I will begin with the purpose of registries in advancing the goal of improving integrity, reproducibility and transparency of research. There are a variety of different initiatives that are trying to help address the quality of research evidence and the pace of discovery. And the open science movement is characterized by a broad embrace of a variety of different possibilities and strategies to innovate on how it is we do and communicate our science. The idea of pre-registration plays a very important role in those initiatives for both improving rigor of research and improving transparency of that research. There are two main things that pre-registration accomplishes that is the behavioral action that is supported by services like OSF registries. One is to address the problem of publication bias. Lots and lots of research gets done and only a subset of that research gets written up in reports and even a subset of that gets published in journals. And it is not an unbiased subset of which papers, articles and findings end up in the published literature because positive results are more likely to get reported than negative results. Novel results are more likely to get published than repeating prior findings, replications or things that incrementally build on prior research. And clean and tidy stories and findings are more likely to get published than things that don't quite fit, don't quite work, don't quite have clarity in why it is they came out the way that they came out. So our important aim of pre-registration is to make it so that in principle, every study that is conducted is discoverable by the reader, by the research community, even if it doesn't get published in the journal at the end. So if I conduct 100 studies and I only write up two of them for publication, if I've been pre-registering my research along the way, you can still discover the other 98 to see if that qualifies your understanding of the two that I did publish. So publication bias is key problem number one that pre-registration helps all. The other key innovation and value of pre-registration is that it makes clear what was planned in advance from what was unplanned and discovered after the fact. Both confirmatory or hypothesis testing approaches to science, those things that we plan and we gather data to test our ideas or discoveries, and exploratory or hypothesis generating modes of research, those things where we use data to generate ideas and possibilities. Both of these activities are critically important for advancing research, but we get into trouble when we mix up one for the other, when we are looking at our data and analyzing it 15 different ways and think we've discovered something new but suddenly rationalize to ourselves of, oh, I have a reason that that might have occurred. I have a theoretical context that I can generate to explain why that might have been observed. That can give us a false sense of confidence in the uncertainty of the data that was discovered post facto after the fact. And so what pre-registration helps to solve is to make clear what were my plans beforehand? What were my design decisions of how the research was going to be? How did I plan to analyze the data? And do I report all of those things after the fact that I plan to do at the outset? That gives us very strong diagnosticity of the statistical and interpretive inferences that we make of those things that we observe from the things that we planned in advance. And then we can embrace and call it what it is, those things that were unplanned, those things that were discovered after the fact, those things that send us a new directions and generate new possibilities without having to conflate them and create an after the fact narrative that we thought that that was gonna happen along. They are in fact discoveries and we can see and understand them that way. So pre-registration is a general solution for these two critical parts of improving the credibility of the published literature. And OSF registries is a service that's intended to enact pre-registration and allow it to be customized for the communities to adopt to them more effectively, efficiently and robustly for the kinds of research that they do. So with OSF registries, communities can launch their own branded service, their own registry for their community that is customized for that community. And that has a lot of benefits for making sure that the metadata approach, the format in which one registers their work is aligned with those community standards, the methodologies that are popular and used in those communities. And it has the benefit for improving the overall cost efficiency of running one's own registry. The technical infrastructure of the OSF supports each of these branded registries running on common tools and services, making it a lot more cost efficient to launch any individual registry. Likewise, by having a shared and mature infrastructure behind these registries, it's easier to create common metadata standards so that each branded registry can have its own standards and help to improve discoverability and aggregation of evidence across different research applications in that community for that domain. And then for us, there's an important element of the branded registries model, which is to help change the research culture, to help communities embrace behaviors like preregistration, it's really best for the community itself to embrace those things, to have insiders be the ones advancing the ideals of preregistration, adapting those ideals into the practical application of preregistration for their communities and for those high credibility insiders to be promoting new norms about preregistration to their colleagues, collaborators and extended network. So the real culture change movement in promoting greater rigor and transparency and reproducibility comes from bottom up, comes from community actions coming together around services like OSF registry and then creating action plans to actually shape the behavior within their communities and elevate those norms into the new standards of how research operates. So the OSF registry service for us serves both that technical goal of making it possible and easy for researchers to register and the social goal to help communities enact preregistration within their community to change behavior of researchers more generally. Okay. Those are the general preparatory statements that I have for why it is branded registries exists and what we hope it will help accomplish in improving openness and reproducibility of research. I want to hand it off now to Nikki Pfeiffer, our director of product who will guide us through the actual service itself so that you can learn more about how this might serve your community. Nikki. Thanks, Brian. Great overview. So I'm just gonna sort of step back briefly and talk about existing functionality. So the infrastructure of OSF currently offers the capability to register an OSF project, which means you can go on the OSF, you can take your research project, you can choose a registration template which will allow you to answer questions about a specific registration detailing some of those things that Brian was talking about. Some of this transparency in your planning of your study, your design, your pre-analysis plan. That's existed on the OSF for several years now. But what we've done recently is do some enhancements to that workflow. First, we updated the way that OSF registrations look, making it easy to come into the registration itself and see the responses to those template questions right from the start. And we've added the ability to actually edit the metadata of a registration. So a registration creates an archived, time-stamped, immutable copy of your project with the responses to these questions and any files that you've uploaded to that project that would detail potentially protocols, pre-analysis plans, any of those concepts that you've already established for your study plan. And so now the editable metadata allows researchers to go in and actually be more descriptive in the metadata that describes the research, making it more discoverable, making it easy for others to explore and understand what is within that registration. So those specific pieces of metadata or the title, the description, adding a DOI to the registration, if there's a point where you're ready to cite that in an article or some other scholarly communication, adding the publication DOI that potentially the registration is actually cited within, adding more detail of subject area for this type of research, affiliating it with your institution, adding a license and tags for discoverability. Additionally, we've revamped a bit of the process. So going in and choosing a template for your registration and then working through answering the questions to come out the other end with what is your well-described registration. We've made it a little bit more intuitive in a submission workflow. It's very streamlined now with very clear sections to move through with feedback on any missing information that you might find there's help text and instruction as you work through that template that helps support sort of good, robust answers to those template questions and then for the consumer really to understand just without the help text what the questions and responses are. And we've actually established registration specific metadata different from a project that is the first step in creating a registration and we've standardized that across all the registrations on the OSF, making it very easy now to search across them. Okay, next slide. So as Brian was talking about branded registries really is built to empower communities. And when we think about what these different stakeholders are that are supporting these communities I just wanted to give a quick overview what those use cases really might be. So thinking about a funder to help implement and establish open policies for communities and societies to really track those behaviors, those new norms and even compliance of those funder mandated policies. Looking at large studies and labs that are working through data collection and really wanting others to explore and reuse that data but wanna make sure that potentially there's a pre-registration of how that data is going to be explored, what type of hypothesis they might have and being able to share that back then with the original data collectors. Publishers and journals to help support the entire research life cycle. So things from very beginning and the transparency throughout that process to the publication. And then finally industry partners really wanting to establish more credibility and rigor through open and transparent practices. So looking at what branded registries really enable communities to do, it is about those open policies where we can look at top guidelines and implementation of those and being able to track that compliance, improving that rigor of research with pre-registration of the study design, building your community and building the capacity for rigor and transparency within that community and then support across the entire research life cycle. Next slides. So now I'm gonna jump over and demonstrate what OSF registries looks like and what the branded registries look like and all the functionality within them. So I'm gonna take over sharing screen with a live demo, which is always fun. Let's see. Okay. So hopefully you can all see my screen, okay? All right, here we is nodding. So this is the OSF registries discovery landing page. And here you can see all of the registrations that we are pulling from across the OSF, several of our branded registries and even pulling in external registries like clinical trials and research registry. So easily you can go in, you can filter results by a specific registry, even by a specific template on the OSF or a branded registry and see the different results directly there. So when we look at what a branded registry would look like for a discovery, because this is aggregating across all these different registries, making it very easy to search across. But when we look at a specific branded registry, I'll show you one that we recently launched for eGap, which is the evidence in governance and politics. They actually had an existing registry that they really wanted to move over to mitigate some of those costs of sustainability that Brian was talking about by using our sort of shared infrastructure model. So with this branded registry, they get to immediately choose their colors and their branding, their own logos. But most importantly, eGap was able to bring in the template that their community uses for their specific registration workflow. So they have over the years of that community establishing this registry, they've and over 2000 registrations exist in there. They've defined what the specific questions and responses they need to see from researchers as part of their sort of curation and review of those registrations and bring them into their registry. So this is one example of a branded registry discovery page. Here's another, this is a meta science registry, which is just launched. So it's not as populated as eGaps, but we hope to see a lot of new registrations coming very soon. But one of the things to highlight, when you come to this branded registry, obviously the branding that you see, but the ability to go in and contribute. So immediately you can add your new registration to the meta science registry. And by doing this, you can go in and you can select an existing project. And again, the branded registry can determine what registration template best suits their community. So here we just have the basic OSF pre-registration, a very robust and thorough form that researchers can complete, but any community could develop their own and it could be sitting right here in this list. So as we move forward and selecting that registration template, here we are in that submission workflow that I just had a screenshot of, but here we can see it in real life. And this is the registration metadata where we really detail that standardized metadata about the registration. This is pulling from the project that I had existing, which is to help simplify the workflow, make it a little bit easier, but you can also edit here. It doesn't get reflected back on the project. This is now specific to my registration. So I can update the title. I can add a description. I see the different collaborators that were on my project. And here I can add a license. Now this list, we have many more license options on the OSF, but because this is a branded registry, this list of license choices is determined by the registry. And therefore I see a much shorter list. I can only choose one of the two CC by licenses that they have set as the standard for what can be shared. Additionally, you can add your subject areas. And so right now this is using our standardized B-Press taxonomy, but similar to what we've done with pre-prints, down the road we hope to support custom taxonomy for specific communities who need this level of detail in describing the type of research studies that their community is working on. But here I can search for political science that seems most relevant, but I can add multiple. So if there are several different subjects that best describe my work, then I can add as many as I want. I can add additional tags for discoverability, and then I can move through the specific questions within the template to describe my hypothesis, my design, my variables and sampling plan, analysis plan. This is all standard to the OSF preregistration template. So I won't go into too much detail about this specific form, but the point here is to really illustrate that a community can determine the most efficient and standardized process for their registrations, for their community, and add that in here. So once they're finished and filled out, they go forth and register. And if I had missed any required fields in this form, what's really nice is that the platform will give you that feedback and point you back to those questions to make sure that you have a very well-defined registration. Because my project has several different levels of hierarchy where I have already set up components where I'm gonna host my data and other materials, perhaps I already have though, very well-described lit review and analysis scripts that I do wanna go ahead and include because this was part of my registration. I can go ahead and include that now and that will become part of that timestamped immutable registration. And the last part is same standards that we offer on the OSF, but communities can really determine if embargo makes sense for their community and offer that or not. And the embargo window for us is four years, but that's certainly something that communities may have a specific standard where they only wanna embargo for a year or two or something like that and creating a DOI as well. So moving through the final submission, then I would get an email as a collaborator on the registration to approve that and then it would appear in the registries interface. And this would be in the branded registry, for example. What's really important is I still have that OSF project that's connected to my registration, which as Brian was talking about, this is really about the transparency that goes along with the whole process and sharing that from start to finish across the research life cycle. So that project exists, it's connected to my registration and I can continue to use that to go back and upload data and other analyses that I've done after putting in that pre-registration. And one of the things that we will be working on next year is to look at outcome reporting. So when you do the final leg of your work, then you have your findings that you wanna share and linking that back to that initial pre-registration really creates that full picture of that research and full transparency. So if I could go back to those slides one more time, I just wanted to reiterate that the branded registries allow you to customize the branding, the colors, the logos and the templates and certainly think about what the specific workflow needs are for your community and that can also be adjusted within our workflow, but basically allows you to set the standards and engage your community using sort of a shared infrastructure platform. And now I'm gonna pass it off to David to talk about some of the work that we've been doing with our communities and all of the exciting things that are coming out there. Thanks, Nicky. Yes, what's up? So I wanted to give an overview of a little bit of the history and growth of pre-registration across different domains, give an overview of current efforts amongst societies, funders, publishers and journals to promote the adoption of pre-registration, what available formats there are right now on the OSF and what the future holds. A lot of what our future work is is trying to provide more community curated, community created templates in order to meet the needs of different disciplines. And I'll give a couple of examples of where we're working there. I was tempted to give a huge history, a comprehensive history of registration across different domains, but let me just assert quickly that registration has been required by law in clinical research, testing new drugs and devices on patients for about 20 years now, and it's been tremendously effective in reducing bias in what type of research gets disseminated or identifying when practices such as switched outcome become identifying when those practices might happen. The same types of benefits that we see in clinical research are applicable to basic and pre-clinical sciences, and we've seen a tremendous growth over the past seven or eight years of the use of pre-registration in the basic and pre-clinical sciences. So these are, this is showing the growth of study registration on the OSF registry over the past several years. We've been involved with a number of communities in helping to adopt and expand the use of this habit across many disciplines. Again, primarily focused on basic and pre-clinical research because of the reasons that Brian mentioned earlier, hoping to make a clearer distinction between planned hypothesis testing research and discovery unplanned research, making a distinction between those two is critical for maintaining the utility of the statistical tests that are often used. We've seen tens of thousands of studies registered on the OSF registry, and a lot of our focus over the next coming months and years is to expand and adapt the format to different use cases, different stakeholders, and different domains. I wanted to point out several institutional stakeholders that are really taking these issues on head on to showcase what can happen and the types of players and the types of institutions who could be interested in the formats that we have available. So one good example is the work that's going on in the US Department of Education, the Institute for Education Sciences has very clear guidelines on how to pre-register research practices. They use call, these are part of the standards for excellence in education research. The SEAR standards include a lot of recommendations for best practices in open and transparent and rigorous research, including pre-registration and replication studies. These pre-registration standards provided by the SEAR standards at the Institute for Education at the IES Education Sciences provide really clear and actionable demonstration for what needs to occur, what needs to be included in a study design, but before data collection or before data analysis takes place. We're working with a number of funders and we see a number of funders and societies adapting these principles in many different ways. The National Science Foundation includes guidelines for pre-registration in many of their calls. Links to some of those are available on a curated resource hub that we have available. Links to that are available at the bottom and will be made available at two participants after this also at the top funders page. The NIH has guidelines for what should be registered and particularly what should be included in different types of registries. We see international partners in Germany and the Netherlands taking strong stands for advocating and either encouraging or requiring their funded researchers to pre-register research once it's accepted for funding. Arnold Ventures has been a big supporter of the Center for Open Science and they fund a lot of research, all of which if it's inferential and looking for causal claims needs to be pre-registered. We're working with the British Psychological Association and associations from the APA and the German Psychological Association to develop standards for best practices for what needs to be included in a pre-registration. And funders such as the Children's Tumor Foundation and Flu Lab are involved with particular initiatives on working with journal partners to pre-register research and to guarantee publication of the result of that work once the work is completed. And of course the funders provide support for that research to be conducted and obviously the journals provide a platform for that to be published and disseminated. Links to all of those examples and standards are available on those websites listed below. And we're working with several others to promote their ideal practices for what needs to be included in pre-registered research on the OSF and on several other registry platforms. Here, I'm not gonna go into too much detail about all of these. I just wanted to give a general overview about the different types of registration formats we have available on the OSF. Our standard recommended form that Nikki gave a demonstration of was OSF pre-registration. This is a comprehensive form designed to be generalizable to almost any type of empirical research. It was developed as part of our education campaign, the pre-registration challenge a couple of years ago and designed to be, as I said, applicable to almost any discipline. A lot of the work that I'll get to in just a moment is about making more specific resources available to different research modes or to different disciplines. The open-ended pre-registration form just provides just a single place for you to describe what is being preserved on the registry. And we see people use that when a lot of the documentation is available in the OSF project. Those can be uploaded, code books uploaded, analytical code uploaded, narrative descriptions of the research projects. We see a lot of folks engaging with pre-registration after they've engaged with a journal partner. So we know of about 230 journals that currently offer the registered report format. So those are where the proposed research design is sent to the journal for peer review and revision and if given in principle acceptance, a promise to publish regardless of outcome. That research plan can be locked in place. Sometimes journals will publish that. We have a registry of accepted registered report protocols available on the OSF platform. And we have other formats developed through various stakeholder partners, a concise form provided by the folks at aspredicted.org and others that have gone through revision and curation from their respective communities. Information about all those available in our help docs. I encourage you to take a look at a description of a little bit more of those. But what I really wanted to spend a little bit more detail on is pointing out some of the upcoming work. We're really excited about the various working groups who are creating specific content and formats for different disciplines or different research modes. So we're working with a group who are developing a template for systematic reviews. This is meant to complement the great work that Prospero does. Again, systematic reviews and health outcomes research is provided, has a registry home on the registry called Prospero. But systematic reviews and meta-analyses are of course applicable to many domains. Almost any field can use that format. And so we're working with stakeholders who are interested in promoting that format of systematic reviews across multiple domains. So that's a working group that will, that has share a link to their resources in just a moment. The longitudinal studies working group is working to create standards and best practices for pre-registering work that's going to involve sampling over multiple points in time. This can be of course, quite complicated because sometimes the analysis will take many years, will occur many years in the future. Sometimes people engage registration for the first time in the middle of a longitudinal study and that can be difficult. And so the solution to that is structured transparency, making sure that individuals have the right instructions at the right time to explain the degree to which the data have been analyzed before. Likewise, very similar themes and questions arise when using an existing data set for secondary data analysis. There's a large working group that's been active in the society for improvement of psychological sciences. SIPs have been working on this for about two years now and we have a template we're working on to make sure that's available on OSF. We're working with a working group in promoting registration in pre-clinical biomedical work in qualitative methods and different disciplines. Nikki of course gave an example of evidence in governments and politics. Other funders, industry and societies are working on their domains. ISPOR is a Society in Health Economics and Outcomes Research, which is working to create standards for how to pre-register the work that includes the type of data sets that are common in their field. Here are a couple of examples of the working groups that have these types of forms under development and that we're working to promote on the OSF. So Sarah Weston, Olmo, Ben Docher and several others in a working group at the Society for Improvement of Psychological Sciences have been developing a template and best practices for secondary data pre-registration. They've been doing this for a couple of years and there is something of this OSF project has specific instructions for how to deal with particular instances and research formats using existing data sets and it has instructions for how to register a project based on this template. And that's generated a little bit of a mini-registry on the OSF already by 66 projects having had forked that project according to the instructions that point to registered research projects on the OSF using these standards. So these are already taking off and we're working with these communities to make sure that's a standard available to everybody who encounters pre-registration on the OSF. Olmo, as I mentioned, has been leading several of these efforts and he was one for systematic reviews and this was recently disseminated on a pre-print server. So this provides specific guidelines and recommendations for what to include in both the systematic reviews and meta-analyses. So that is a form that's undergoing a couple of rounds of review and revision right now that we're hoping to incorporate in the OSF in the near future. The Children's Tumor Foundation, I mentioned earlier has been working to promote registration and providing funding support for work that is accepted through those rounds of review. So they have a project on the OSF which connects to several recently funded projects that are going to be published in plus one once they collect and analyze the data as agreed to ahead of time. And each of those projects lists the amount of funding and the research plan available on the OSF. As Claire mentioned earlier, I'm sorry, as Nikki mentioned earlier, we do have that built-in embargo feature on the OSF and you can see on the right-hand side there under components, several of those projects are embargoed, are private, until the work is ready to be publicly released. But thanks to the magic of the OSF, those will become public automatically once the embargo ends, or the authors if they finish up sooner than expected can go ahead and make those public immediately. But one of those is public right now as you can see. So right now I'm going to stop sharing my screen and I think we might have a couple of questions come through the chat window. So I'll take a look at those and we'll get to each of the questions as they come through. Thank you, David and Nikki, for covering the service and how researchers are applying it. And yes, anybody that would like to ask questions, please feel free to enter them into the chat. Maybe a first one here, maybe to David, maybe both of you is the forms that you just reviewed, David, look like they're broadly applicable. Some groups may not have an idea of how they want to set up their own metadata or their own forms. Can they use some of the existing forms for the service if they were to launch their own? Yeah, and Nikki can jump into you with an answer as well. But for each of those branded registries, if you wanna create a registry for your own community, all of those forms that are available on OSF, the society can choose which of those that they wanna make available. They can make their own if they do have a clear idea of precisely what they want to include or they can default to any of these forms that are available now or will be available soon on OSF. So for example, they could pick OSF registration or default template if there's a society that uses or a discipline that uses a lot of longitudinal methods or existing data sets, they could go ahead and pick one of those forms once they're available. I'll just add real fast and it doesn't have to be just one. So that's the other really nice feature that's built into the branded registry is that you could offer the OSF pre-registration but you could also offer something for secondary data analysis if that was part of the sort of breadth of your community's work. Both could be there in the dropdown and either one could be used by the community. And I'll just pick up where Nikki left off just we're going back and forth of course just as a way to mention a related fact-finding initiative. If you're not sure what your society members are interested in, not sure how much experience or how many perceptions there are about the process of pre-registration amongst your stakeholder community amongst the researchers that make up the body of the work. There is the Open Scholarship Survey which is an initiative we've been working on this summer. Thanks to some support is a service that where it's a free survey that's available for anybody to use or it's something that we can help administer to a community really designed to gather data, gather insight on precisely how much experience what their current perceptions are about a number of Open Scholarship initiatives including pre-registration. So I'll put a link to that in the chat and that will be made available to everyone afterwards. It's two, right, and Nikki shared that out. Great, thank you both for the explanation. For Nikki, you mentioned that the OSF supports the registrations. Does that mean that if a group launches a registry that their users could take advantage of the whole OSF service and store their data and other things? Absolutely, and that would be sort of the intention I think for us, as Brian was talking about very early on about what this really empowers communities to do. It's definitely taking on pre-registration practices but it's all about the transparency and openness across the entire life cycle. So definitely the registrations submissions can certainly be part of the branded registry but as part of how the OSF functions every registration either starts from a project or very soon it will be something you can just start the registration and we will build the project as you're going along and creating your registration so that that project is always there in either case for you to continue to use it for sharing and collaborating on other parts of the process. Sharing data, other materials, your outcomes when you're finished so everything can be there, even pre-prints. Right, and then just to follow up on that immediately you mentioned that soon there will be new features. Can you say a little bit more about what additional enhancements will be coming over the coming months? Yes, I'd be excited to. So we just launched branded registries. The next thing that many communities we've been working with have said is that they need a way to moderate the submissions to make sure that the registrations are thorough and robust and really meet the rigor standards for that community. So there is this level of sort of accepting or rejecting with some feedback of those registrations. So allowing them to kind of curate that set for sort of discoverability and demonstrating sort of the practices within that community. So that's definitely an aspect. Great, thank you. David, following up you mentioned the Open Scholarship Survey to assess how a community is feeling about preregistration or open science practices as groups look at developing these services. Are there things that you've seen or learned from that survey about consistent barriers that need to be addressed before communities are ready to tackle or start to do preregistration? What's, or maybe another way to rephrase the question, what are the best norm developing strategies that you've seen in trying to promote preregistration? Yeah, yeah, I'll get to that answer and a little bit of the kind of an intended use case of the Open Scholarship Survey is to get over that anecdote feeling. The last time I heard somebody talk about preregistration was some grumpy conference participant or something like that and really be more systematic about what our understanding is within a discipline about practices such as data sharing or of course in this case, preregistration. And when we've piloted it, when you've seen similar surveys go out, there's a lot of, there's a small group of folks who are not too engaged in there and don't really want to push hard on it. There's a medium-sized group of folks who are aware of it and want to work towards a couple of standards but don't quite know where to start. And the biggest group are just folks who just aren't quite aware or haven't quite practiced it too much. So what we see is, with societies that have really tackled it head on directly and successfully are those that kind of follow a little bit of that strategy we've seen applied many other places, making these types of practices visible through conference consortia. The British Neuroscience Association is a good example of working to normalize this. They've had several poster sessions, pre-registration, poster sessions that describe a study. The poster is describing a study yet to be conducted. Poster participants get feedback on these proposed studies. And then those are registered on OSF and they're badged as such also in the conference program. The badge that I included in my presentation is a way to simply signal that something is pre-registered. A good example is what psych science has been doing. If you look at their table of contents, you see about a third of their studies include one or more registrations. And the real value of that is that you can see what your colleagues are doing, you can see what your peers are doing. Each one of those is an example that you can follow. If it's somebody who does very similar work as you, you can follow all the link and see what their registration looked like. It does give you more insight into the process of their research. You can see how it evolves over time. So each one of those examples of making it visible is a real way to see where the community is, see where your peers are and see more examples that you can follow and emulate. A couple of societies that are more willing to take the first step are ones where they take what we call a level two approach. Level two from the top guidelines. These are standards promoted to publishers and to funders. Those ask if the work was pre-registered and appoints somebody to take a look about what was pre-registered and what's the plan followed. And there are examples of those on the website that I mentioned also. So there's many different ways to apply it, but the very first way is to have a place for somebody to register and then make those behaviors visible. So there are lots of examples for one to follow. Those are the first steps. Great, thanks, David. Maybe, Nikki, you can address a final question about if a society or a funder is potentially interested in launching their own registry or any group. What are the steps that they need to follow to do that? Sure. Ideally, it's really simple. It's sort of meeting with David or I or potentially both of us, depending on your needs. So one, the reason for that fork there is if the template is something that you wanna work through, like David is doing with other communities to set sort of a very rigorous template for your registry, then I would definitely work with David. He's got a very good sense across all these different communities and he worked on the OSF pre-registration template. So he's got all that knowledge to sort of share and work with you on. So that's one aspect of the registry, but to move forward quickly using one of the templates we already have in existence, then it's definitely reaching out to me. It's answering a few kind of simple questions, sharing some logos and colors with me. And then we can look at this on our test server and sort of work with your group of community stakeholders to ensure that this meets the needs. And I'll certainly drop the link to our website, which has a lot of information about registries in it, but as well as some of the pricing information for setting up the registry and the different additional services that you may be interested in talking with us about for the needs. Great, thanks. Claire, I presume that this recording will be available on our website for those that missed it in case people want to share it with others. Is that correct? I see in the chat Claire says yes. All right, great. So what you can plan to do is visit sos.io. I'm guessing we will have links maybe in the blog or elsewhere in the registries part to be able to view and share this recording about the introduction and overview of the service. And then there's lots more information there, as Nikki mentioned. David or Nikki, are there any other things that we need to say before we wrap this session? I would just say get involved with promoting registration, building it's the first step and we're happy to help walk you through that. Thanks for joining us. Perfect, all right. Thank you everyone. And please let us know if there's any ways that we can help you improve rigor and transparency of your research and your community's research. Thanks very much.