Like timroy, I don't know what your objection to pre-registration is. I'm definitely talking about pre-registering the analysis, not just the data collection.
> As pointed out in the article, result-blind refereeing is officially claimed by most journals,
Did I miss something? That doesn't seem to be what the article is saying:
> One proposed remedy is to modify the peer review process so that reviewers grade manuscripts on the quality of their introductions and methods sections rather than the novelty of the findings. Similarly, journals could assess submissions based solely on the rigor of their methods—as does Plos One.
PLoS One is an anomaly. This is not normal.
At the very least, pre-registration helps guard against the "file-drawer" effect, where a negative result simply goes in the trash, and no one ever knows it occurred.
If you mean that pre-registration will not prevent jiggling the results until the researcher gets a significant p-value, then I agree that many forms of pre-registration which lack registration of the analysis and so on will allow the authors to fake the narrative.