Original researchSurveying opinions of 149 registrants to the Research Registry: Awareness of and attitudes towards research registration

- A survey was created and was sent to all registrants to the Research Registry®.
- The response rate was 16.1%, raising concerns regarding registry engagement.
- 45% of registrations were made retrospectively, against the Declaration of Helsinki.
- The most important features of research registration are simplicity and convenience.
- Registries should focus on engagement with, and simplification of, registration.

BackgroundResearch registration is an important ethical principle in the Declaration of Helsinki, however, progress to increase registration has been slow. Understanding the attitudes of users towards registries may provide insights into increase research registration. In this survey-based study, we sought to gain insight from users of a single global research registry, the Research Registry® (www.researchregistry.com).MethodsA Google Forms survey was created and emailed to all users of the Research Registry® (n = 1432). Multiple choice and free-text answers were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis respectively.ResultsFrom 925 contactable registrations, 149 (16.1%) completed the survey. The most commonly registered study type was retrospective cohort (32.2%). 23 registrations (15.4%) were made during the planning or conception of the study, whereas 67 (45.0%) registered at the time of journal submission, or during the peer review process. Of those that declared whether they had performed unregistered research or not, 51 (45.5%) participants had previously performed unregistered research. Registrants were most commonly made aware of the Research Registry® through submission to the International Journal of Surgery (IJS) family of journals (n = 57, 47.5%). Survey participants identified the most important features of registration to be its convenience, including the ease, time and cost of registration. Thematic analysis revealed the most common motive for registration to be as a mandatory requirement of journal submission, and that registration can be improved by simplification of the registration process.ConclusionRegistries must focus on engaging their network of users to ensure that research registration is a dynamic process. They need to adopt a user-centered and agile approach to their development, with a strong focus on “customer service”. Moreover, by working in partnership with journals, it is possible to improve compliance with registration.