Conclusions

This study presents the first comprehensive evaluation of both the frequency and effectiveness of preregistration in a large sample of sports science articles across journals spanning all quartiles. Overall, 10% of eligible articles were preregistered. The proportion of supported hypotheses was significantly lower in preregistered studies compared with non-registered studies, although with a negligible effect size observed. Higher-quartile journals published a greater proportion of preregistered studies and reported more supported hypotheses than lower-quartile journals. Notably, more than two-thirds of preregistered studies contained a hypothesis that was not included in their original preregistration. These findings suggest that the uptake of preregistration in sports science remains low, and its effectiveness appears limited. This may be partially attributable to inconsistent adherence to preregistered protocols and the presence of QRPs during manuscript preparation.