Scholars across the social and natural sciences are raising troubling questions about the distorting effects of publication bias and its effects on the accuracy and replicability of published research. Despite many researchers? good intentions, incentives to engage in questionable research practices, such as selective reporting of results and misuse of statistical significance claims, threatens the credibility of many scientific efforts and undermines our ability to produce knowledge that is useful to others.

To reduce these distortions, a coalition of forward-looking journals has agreed to participate in a demonstration project that focuses on the concept of preaccepted articles. Participating journals have agreed to review research manuscripts, and consider them for publication, before data is collected.

Without practices like preacceptance, many scholars who try to ?do the right thing? when reporting their findings find that the institutional inertia of academic journal review processes (particularly processes that favor ?statistical significance?) leave scholars who do not wish to misrepresent their findings at a disadvantage when it comes to getting published. Even scholars who preregister their research designs can be shut out of the publication process if journals do not upgrade their practices. This project is designed to counter that inertia. It offers new incentives for scholars and journals to publish high-quality articles that use preregistered research designs about an important upcoming event (the 2016 election). The idea is not only to produce important knowledge about the event itself but also to provide a model for increasing research integrity in other fields.