Submit a report

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

480

Restriction of researcher degrees of freedom through the Psychological Research Preregistration-Quantitative (PRP-QUANT) Templateuse asterix (*) to get italics
Lisa Spitzer & Stefanie MuellerPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
2024
<p>Preregistration can help to restrict researcher degrees of freedom and thereby ensure the integrity of research findings. However, its ability to restrict such flexibility depends on whether researchers specify their study plan in sufficient detail and adhere to this plan. Previous research indicates higher restrictiveness when preregistrations are based on structured versus unstructured template formats, although there is room for further improvement. The planned study aims to build on these findings and investigate the restrictiveness of preregistrations based on the PRP-QUANT Template, an extensive template that aids the preregistration of quantitative studies in psychology. Preregistrations will be sampled from PsychArchives and coded for their level of restrictiveness using the coding scheme of Bakker et al. (2020) and Heirene et al. (2021). We predict that preregistrations based on the PRP-QUANT Template (<em>N</em> = [74]) are more restrictive than preregistrations based on the OSF Preregistration Template (<em>N</em> = 52, Bakker et al., 2020, hypothesis 1). We will also inspect whether peer review can contribute further to restricting flexibility and predict higher restrictiveness for peer-reviewed (<em>n</em> = [27]) than non-peer-reviewed preregistrations (<em>n</em> = [47], hypothesis 2), using nested Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests. Additionally, we will examine adherence to the preregistered plans in the associated publications (<em>N</em> = [17]). [In line/in contrast] to hypothesis 1, PRP-QUANT preregistrations [had significantly/did not have] higher restrictiveness scores than OSF Preregistrations. Moreover, [consistent/inconsistent] with hypothesis 2, peer-reviewed preregistrations [had significantly/did not have] higher restrictiveness than non-peer-reviewed ones. […] percent of the associated articles included undeclared deviations. We discuss the implications of our findings for the PRP-QUANT Template and structured templates in general.</p>
You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
meta-research, meta-science, open science, preregistration
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Social sciences
No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]
2023-06-01 10:39:20
Daniel Lakens