Eating disorders and disordered eating (DE) in general refer to various habits and symptoms, such as binge eating, fasting, and extreme control of one’s weight. Whereas specific eating disorders tend to have an estimated prevalence of less than 1% (DSM-5-TR, 2022), different types of DE are more common especially among young women. Evidence has accumulated for body dissatisfaction and shame to play a role in DE development, but qualitative knowledge regarding this is limited. Sacchi and Carrard’s (2025) planned research contributes to this gap through the lens of interpersonal functioning, and asks:

 

 

The authors will interview approximately 20 French-speaking young women who report body dissatisfaction. The analysis is carried out via reflexive thematic analysis. The transparent plan includes various quality checks, such as a reflexivity journal with an audit trail and the valuable data will be deposited for safe reuse after careful anonymisation.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by three reviewers from psychology with both methods and topic expertise. All reviewers returned for a second evaluation round. Based on the authors careful revisions and reponses to review feedback, the third revision of the plan was considered to satisfy Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/hxuqv (under temporary private embargo)
 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA. 
 

 

References
 
1. DSM-5-TR (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders 5: Text Revision. American Psychiatric Association.

 

2. Sacchi, L. & Carrard, I. (2025) Exploration of Young Women’s Experience of Body Dissatisfaction, Body Shame and Interpersonal Functioning: A Qualitative Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/hxuqv

We want people to be honest, and we want to believe that people around us are acting honestly. This is particularly the case when honesty is related to some external stakes, such as a performance evaluation or monetary award. Violations of honesty in such a context are generally thought of as cheating. The motivation to engage in cheating is obviously complex, multidimensional, and can be driven by personality, self-interest, or situational demands. Feelings of stress, exhaustion, or fatigue while completing a task have been demonstrated to be related to engaging in dishonest behavior. The reasons for why, exactly, are still unclear.

 

In the current study, Bialas et al. (2025) propose to further our understanding of how mental fatigue impacts cheating by testing two competing accounts in the literature. The self-interest overriding account suggests that individuals must exert effort to overcome their baseline tendency to act in their self-interest, which then leads to fatigue that can, in turn, increase the chance of cheating. In contrast, the moral default account suggests that individuals have differing baseline tendencies to be honest, and that it requires effort to act out of alignment with this baseline, and so when fatigued. people should engage in behaviors (e.g., cheating) that align with their baseline. Building on a pilot study, Bialas et al. will conduct a within-subject lab experiment that tests the two competing accounts. 

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth peer review, the first consisting of substantial comments from two scholars with relevant expertise, and the second consisting of a re-review by the original two reviewers. The final evaluation involved a close review by the recommender. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and was therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/fd86y
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA. 
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals: 

 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Collabra: Psychology
• Experimental Psychology *pending editorial consideration of disciplinary fit
• International Review of Social Psychology
• Journal of Cognition
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Social Psychological Bulletin
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

 

Bialas, M., Becker, D., Pieters, W., Boksem, M. A. S., & Bijleveld, E. (2025). Too tired to be honest: The role of mental fatigue in dishonesty. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/fd86y

Understanding how the human brain supports spatial attention is a fundamental aim of cognitive neuroscience. Among the behavioural paradigms that have been used for over a century to probe spatial biases, the line bisection and landmark tasks stand out for their clinical relevance and conceptual clarity. These paradigms, where individuals are asked either to mark the midpoint of a horizontal line (bisection) or to judge the symmetry of a pre-transected line (landmark), have not only helped to diagnose spatial neglect in stroke patients but have also been instrumental in revealing subtle spatial asymmetries in neurotypical individuals, a phenomenon often termed "pseudoneglect" (Jewell & McCourt, 2000).

 

Despite their wide adoption and extensive application in functional neuroimaging studies, the neural substrates consistently engaged by these tasks in healthy individuals remain unclear. Here, Burns et al. (2025) directly address this critical gap by setting out a transparent, reproducible plan for a systematic review and seed-based mapping with permutation of subject images (SDM-PSI) meta-analysis of fMRI studies. This initiative is commendable both for its theoretical focus and its methodological rigor, and as such, it earns a strong recommendation.

 

This review protocol is comprehensive and well justified. The authors detail an inclusive and structured search strategy, systematic screening procedures, and clearly defined inclusion and exclusion criteria that will ensure the homogeneity and relevance of the included studies. Importantly, the focus is on neurotypical adults, which allows the review to establish a normative baseline for brain activations during these paradigms, a necessary step before comparing patterns in clinical groups such as individuals with spatial neglect.

 

The methodological strengths of this Stage 1 submission are considerable. The research questions are well posed, focused, and theoretically meaningful. By conducting separate meta-analyses for bisection and landmark tasks and then performing a conjunction analysis, the authors will be able to disentangle task-specific from shared neural substrates. This analytical separation is particularly important for interpreting domain-specific vs. general attentional mechanisms in the brain.

 

As with any meta-analysis, the conclusions of this review will be limited by the quality and reporting standards of the included studies. For example, potential inconsistencies in task implementation, scanner parameters, or statistical thresholds across studies could introduce noise into the results. While the authors propose to conduct subgroup analyses (e.g., excluding ROI-based studies or grey literature), heterogeneity may remain a limiting factor.

 

In conclusion, this Stage 1 Registered Report presents a rigorously designed and theoretically significant plan to synthesise over three decades of functional neuroimaging research on spatial attention. By combining high methodological transparency with state-of-the-art meta-analytic tools, Burns et al. offer a valuable contribution that will clarify the neural architecture of bisection and landmark tasks. Their work stands to impact both basic research on attention and applied fields such as neuropsychological assessment and rehabilitation.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/3nc2h
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question has been accessed and partially observed by the authors, but the authors certify that they have not yet observed the key variables within the data that will be used to answer the research question and they have taken additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly Journals:

 

 

 

1. Burns, N.E., McIntosh, R.D., & Silson, E. (2025). Neural correlates of line bisection and landmark tasks in neurotypical people: A registered systematic review and SDM-PSI meta-analysis of fMRI studies. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/3nc2h

 

2. Jewell, G. & McCourt, M. E. (2000). Pseudoneglect: a review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38, 93-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3932(99)00045-7

The link between climate change and health is becoming increasingly clear, and problematic (IPCC, 2023). While most agree that climate change is a problem (Vlasceanu et al., 2024) and evidence is starting to emerge that individual's wellbeing can benefit from engaging in proenvironmental behaviour (Prinzing, 2023), there is little robust longitudinal evidence available to make causal claims about the complex and inter-related nature of these types of effects.

 

In the current study, Major-Smith et al. (2025) used the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children to explore whether climate concern has a causal impact upon mental health. Strategic use of this pre-existing data allowed consideration of both confounding bias and reverse causality to provide more rigorous evidence for this causal effect. The second research question (whether climate action moderates this relationship) was of great personal and professional interest, as someone who struggles with climate anxiety, and plants hundred of trees annually to try and mitigate the dread. Capable of exploring the potential for individual-level climate action to have a double effect - directly help with climate change mitigation and also an individuals' mental health, the research was a rewarding and insightful line of inquiry in a domain desperate for a more rapid and rigorous evidence-base.

 

In summary, the results weren't as (I) expected. On average, climate change concerns didn't, on average, compromise subsequent mental health, and climate action/beliefs didn't moderate this relationship. The former finding has been corroborated by the results from UK participants of a recently published longitudinal study (Collery & Niedzwiedz, 2025). Together these works deviate from the conclusions of the majority of the extant literature taking cross-sectional approaches (and as such far less capable of informing causal interpretations). This rigorously produced work provides a robust gateway to further study in this vital domain, considering issues of (geographical) vulnerability, climate concern vs climate anxiety, and wider societal factors like government (in)action. 

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/t6d3k
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence that was used to answer the research question had been accessed and partially observed by the authors, but the authors certify that they had not yet observed the key variables within the data that were used to answer the research question and they took additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly Journals:

 

 

 

1. IPCC (2023). Accessed here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/resources/spm-headline-statements

 

2. Major-Smith, D., Halstead, I., & Major-Smith, K. (2025) Does concern regarding climate change impact subsequent mental health? A longitudinal analysis using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/4dfcn_v2

 

3. Prinzing, M. (2023). Proenvironmental Behavior Increases Subjective Well-Being: Evidence From an Experience-Sampling Study and a Randomized Experiment. Psychological Science, 35, 951-961. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241251766

 

4. Vlasceanu, M., Doell, K. C., Bak-Coleman, J. B., Todorova, B., Berkebile-Weinberg, M. M., Grayson, S. J., ... & Lutz, A. E. (2024). Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries. Science Advances, 10, eadj5778. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adj5778

 

5. Collery, A., & Niedzwiedz, C. L. (2025). Climate change worry and the association with future 886 
depression and anxiety: cross-national analysis of 11 European countries. BMJ Mental Health, 887 
28, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2024-301318

 

Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly integrated into institutional settings in multiple different roles, arguably contributing to an ongoing transformation of cultural evolution (Brinkmann et al. 2023). Considering this change in academic institutions across disciplines and countries too, it is important to advance knowledge regarding their usage in such settings. Here, Bergmann and colleagues (2025) tackle this research gap with upcoming user data from psychology students (N=1450) who communicate with a statistics chatbot by OpenAI’s GPT-4o, StatsBot, as part of their studies.
 
The study design is built on a three-step mixed-method process, starting from deductive and inductive content analysis, and concluding with descriptive statistical analysis. The plan was shaped by a detailed pilot with similar StatsBot data (n=85) that enabled crafting a transparent plan for follow-up content analysis. Additional statistical explorations, such as those via network analyses, are promising and can yield valuable insights regarding the functions and utility of LLMs in learning processes. Comparative testing of LLMs and human analysis adds an informative meta-layer to the design.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was reviewed by four experts, including two from psychology, one from computer science, and one specialized in the technical aspects of LLMs. Two experts returned to provide feedback on the revisions over a second review round. The third revision of the protocol was considered to satisfy Stage 1 criteria and was therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/v6bj2

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 5. All of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question already exist, but are currently inaccessible to the authors and thus unobservable prior to IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals: