Do pre-analysis plans hamper publication?

Scholars assert that pre-analysis plans (PAPs) generate boring, lab-report style papers and thus hamper publication. We test this claim by comparing the publication rates of experimental NBER working papers with and without PAPs. We find that articles with PAPs are slightly less likely to be published. However, conditional on being published, PAP-generated papers are significantly more likely to land in top-five journals. Also, PAP-based journal articles generate more citations. Our findings suggest that the alleged trade-off between career concerns and the scientific credibility that comes from registering and adhering to a PAP is less stark than is sometimes alleged.