Abstract
In his commentary, Klonsky outlines several arguments for why preregistration mandates (PRMs) will have a negative impact on the field. Klonsky's overarching concern is that when preregistration ceases to be a tool for research and becomes an indicator of quality itself (a primary example being preregistration badges), it loses its intended benefits. Separate from his concerns surrounding policies such as preregistration badges, Klonsky also critiques the practice of preregistration itself, arguing that it can impede our use of other valuable research tools (e.g., multiverse analyses and exploratory analyses). We provide a response to Klonsky's concerns about preregistration and related policies. First, we provide conceptual clarification on the purpose of preregistration, which was missing in Klonsky's commentary. Second, with a clearer conceptual framework, we not only highlight where some of Klonsky's concerns are warranted but also highlight where Klonsky's concerns, critiques, and proposed alternatives to the use of preregistration fall short. Third, with this conceptual understanding of preregistration, we briefly outline some challenges related to the effective implementation of preregistration in psychological science.