Abstract
Campbell's Law explains the replication crisis. In brief, useful tools such as hypotheses, p-values, and multi-study designs came to be viewed as indicators of strong science, and thus goals in and of themselves. Consequently, their use became distorted in unanticipated ways (e.g., hypothesizing after results were known [HARKing], p-Hacking, misuses of researcher degrees of freedom), and fragile findings proliferated. Pre-registration mandates are positioned as an antidote. However, I argue that such efforts, perhaps best exemplified by pre-registration badges (PRBs), are history repeating: Another useful tool has been converted into an indicator of strong science and a goal in and of itself. This, too, will distort its use and harm psychological science in unanticipated ways. For example, there is already evidence that papers seeking PRBs routinely violate the rules and spirit of pre-registration. I suggest that pre-registration mandates will (a) discourage optimal scientific practice, (b) exacerbate the file drawer problem, (c) encourage pre-registering after results are known (PRARKing), and (d) create false trust in fragile findings. I conclude that multiple design features can help support replicability (e.g., adequate sample size, valid measurement, robustness checks, pre-registration), none should be canonized, replication is the only arbiter of replicability, and the most important solution is sociocultural: to foster a field that reveres and reinforces robust science-just as we once revered and reinforced flashy but fragile science.