Commentary: Expanding the vision of Registered Reports for qualitative mental health research: A response and extension to 'Misaligned incentives in mental health research - the case for Registered Reports', Baldwin (2023)

There is a growing exploration of how Registered Reports can benefit individual researchers and wider research fields as part of a wider shift towards open research principles and practices. In 'Misaligned incentives in mental health research - the case for Registered Reports', Baldwin examines this in the context of mental health research, arguing that Registered Reports (RRs) can be a valuable solution to misaligned incentive structures in the field. However, this original piece was generally inclined towards how such incentives and the use of RRs can play out in the context of quantitative research. Such reflection is valuable, but to examine the case for RRs in mental health research as a field, we must also explore such practices within the context of qualitative research. In this commentary, we therefore expand and reframe this discussion to make the case for RRs in qualitative mental health research. We explore the place for qualitative research in the mental health research field and examine possibilities for how RRs fit within principles and practices in such methods. We discuss the various benefits and challenges of RRs in qualitative research, reflecting on our experiences as authors and reviewers of qualitative RRs and exploring how research infrastructure can facilitate engagement with this publishing approach.