Mori et al. BMC Research Notes (2022) 15:184 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06043-x COMMENTARY Trinity review: integrating Registered Reports with research ethics and funding reviews Yuki Mori 1† , Kaito Takashima 1† , Kohei Ueda 1 , Kyoshiro Sasaki 2 and Yuki Yamada 3* Abstract One major source of exhaustion for researchers is the redundant paperwork of three different documents—research papers, ethics review applications, and research grant applications—for the same research plan. This is a wasteful and redundant process for researchers, and it has a more direct impact on the career development of early-career researchers. Here, we propose a trinity review system based on Registered Reports that integrates scientific, ethics, and research funding reviews. In our proposed trinity review system, scientific and ethics reviews are undertaken con- currently for a research protocol before running the study. After the protocol is approved in principle through these review processes, a funding review will take place, and the researchers will begin their research. Following the experi- ments or surveys, the scientific review will be conducted on a completed version of the paper again, including the results and discussions (i.e., the full paper), and the full paper will be published once it has passed the second review. This paper provides the brief process of the trinity review system and discusses the need for and benefits of the proposed system. Although the trinity review system only applies to a few appropriate disciplines, it helps improve reproducibility and integrity. Keywords: Registered Reports, Research ethics, Research grants, Peer review, Review system, Academic publishing © The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativeco mmons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Introduction Early-career researchers (ECRs) need to undertake pro- ductive scientifc research with the aim of obtaining a degree, notwithstanding the huge chasm between the classical research practices imparted by professors and the state-of-the-art research practices required in a dras- tically transforming scientifc ecosystem. For example, a new submission format called “Registered Reports” (RRs) has emerged, and it is reported that 77% of researchers who used RRs are ECRs, whereas only 4% are professors [1]. Extending RRs, which are widely used by ECRs whose productivity is important, in more conducive directions would help boost their research activities. Tus, we will present here a draft sketch of a new review system that we, the ECRs, believe will be more efcient, fexible, and diverse. Current researchers are required to write three diferent documents for each project. One is a research paper manuscript. Research papers are academic publi- cations that describe some of the fndings of a research project, and many researchers focus on producing these peer-reviewed publications. Te second is an application for ethics review. In experimental psychology, for exam- ple, researchers conduct experiments on living things, including humans (i.e., subjects). To ensure that sub- jects’ rights and safety are not violated, the study plan is reviewed in advance by the ethical committee of afliated institutions. Tis holds true for any research that involves humans or animals as subjects, such as medical research [2]. Researchers can start their studies when the plan is Open Access BMC Research Notes *Correspondence: yamadayuk@gmail.com † Yuki Mori and Kaito Takashima contributed equally 3 Faculty of Arts and Science, Kyushu University, 744 Motooka, Nishi-ku, Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan Full list of author information is available at the end of the article