The registered study is of great interest, as it is important that all research contributions are taken into account in the research ecosystem. It looks like this study wants to evaluate whether a specific platform (CONICET-Argentina) is inclusive of (meta)data generated by Research Support Staff.

Based on the specific objectives and research questions listed in the preregistration, I can’t conclude whether this is indeed the main objective. There are some inconsistencies where some of the objectives seem to focus on whether data shared on this platform would increase the integrity of the research data produced by Research Support Staff, whereas the second set of objectives/questions already seem to agree that this is indeed the case, and that therefore we need to increase the use of the platform and provide training and target barriers in using the platform. Based on the description of the work it seems that this last component is the focus of the study – and therefore I would rephrase some of the objectives and the main objectives to reflect this.

The data collection and analysis parts of the study could do with some more details – right now it is difficult for me to assess whether this approach will indeed answer the research questions of the study.

Summary

This preregistration describes a qualitative, exploratory study that aims to investigate how the CONICET-Argentina research data platform might support appropriate recognition of contributions by research support staff. To this end, documentary analysis and action-research methods will be used.

Evaluation based on the minimum criteria proposed by Hahn et al. (2025)

The following aspects were proposed by Hahn et al. (2025) as minimum criteria for preregistrations. I have evaluated the preregistration regarding each point and included some comments:

Hypothesized pattern of results: It is perfectly acceptable to preregister exploratory research – which I assume to be the case here, as no hypotheses are mentioned. In this case, however, I would emphasize more strongly that no hypotheses will be tested, i.e., explicitly state that this is a qualitative exploratory study without hypotheses, rather than simply not mentioning hypotheses. This should later also be made clear in the manuscript.

Variables: Data sources, types, and methods are shortly named; however, it seems as though the study plan is still quite open. It’s okay if you can’t decide on individual things yet, and it’s good to be transparent about this. However, the current description is vague overall, so I would recommend giving more thought to the specific implementation in advance and describing it in more detail in a revised version of the preregistration (e.g., already determining exactly how data will be collected, which variables will be examined in detail, etc.).

Sample size: The sample size is less relevant for qualitative studies (Haven & Van Grootel, 2019); however, no information about the sample is given whatsoever, although the data collection methods comprise questionnaires and participant observations. Therefore, I encourage the author to provide more information about the inspected samples (both human participants and entries in the registry that will be inspected).

Exclusion criteria: This is also less relevant for qualitative studies (Haven & Van Grootel, 2019). However, if RSS are invited to the study to provide their opinion, I would still encourage the author to describe in more detail how they will be sampled. Additionally, please provide a description of the selection process for the entries of the platform that will be inspected.

Planned analyses to test the hypothesis: I think it is good that further details of the methodology and statistical models used are referenced in the preregistration. However, I am unable to understand them, as they are written in Spanish. In order to make the preregistration comprehensible to a broader audience, descriptions should therefore be added to these sections of the preregistration, especially with regard to the statistical models.

Time stamp: yes, available

Conclusion

Overall, I believe that this preregistration describes an important investigation: The participation of diverse groups in research and the correct recognition of contributions are important aspects of open science and should therefore be examined more closely.

I have used the minimum criteria for preregistrations proposed by Hahn et al. (2025) as the basis for my assessment. Even though these may be more relevant for quantitative than qualitative research, I still recommend addressing the above points to ensure that these minimum criteria are adequately implemented in the present preregistration. It should be noted, of course, that these are only minimum criteria, and therefore, the descriptions should ideally be even more detailed and precise.

Currently, data collection and analyses plans are only described very vaguely, which compromises the comprehensibility of the study and leaves much room for researcher degrees of freedom (e.g., see Wicherts et al., 2016). Therefore, I would suggest planning and describing the methods in more detail in a revised version of the preregistration. The paper by Haven and Van Grootel (2019) “Preregistering qualitative research” might also be of assistance.

In addition, I would recommend differentiating between general “data integrity” and “recognition of contributions”. For me, it seems that the study will focus on the latter; however, the objectives also describe “Understand the relationship between FAIR Research Data Objectives and the integrity of data produced by RSS staff“. Since the protocol also mentions limited resources, it might make sense to narrow the focus here.

I hope that my comments can help the author improve their study plan and am looking forward for a revised version.