​​​Making causal judgements are part of everyday life, whether seeking to understand the action of complex humans or the relations between inanimate objects in our environments. Albert Michotte’s (1963) classic book, The perception of causality, contained an extensive report of experiments demonstrating not only that observers perceive causality of inanimate shapes, but do so in manifold ways, creating different “causal impressions.” This work has been highly influential across psychology and neuroscience.

 

In the current study, White (2023) proposes a series of experiments to replicate and extend Michotte’s work. Despite the fact that this research is foundational to current work on perception and understanding of causal relations, it has never been subjected to rigorous replication. Moreover, like many research studies from that era, Michotte was sparse on details about methodology and did not rely on statistical analysis. White has proposed an ambitious set of 14 experiments that directly replicate and, in some cases, extend Michotte’s experiments. 

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth review, the first two rounds consisting of detailed comments from two reviewers and the third round consisting of a close read 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/5jx8f (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.
 
List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals:
 

 

 

1. Michotte, A. (1963). The perception of causality (T. R. Miles & E. Miles, trans.). London: Methuen. (English translation of Michotte, 1954).

 

2. White, P. A. (2023). Michotte's research on perceptual impressions of causality: A registered replication study. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/5jx8f 

​​The responsible conduct of research (RCR) is crucial for the health of the research ecosystem: high quality research should lead to more credible findings and increase public trust. However, the dimensions and responsibilities that make up RCR differ across disciplines, who together can learn from one another to ensure rigorous, transparent, and reliable research and foster healthier research culture.

 

Bridging this gap, in their Stage 1 Registered Report, Field and colleagues (2024) outline their plans for a large-scale Delphi study to evaluate academics' perceived levels of importance of the most crucial elements of RCR and how these align and differ across disciplines. First, they plan to assemble a Delphi panel of RCR experts across multiple disciplines who will evaluate a list of RCR dimensions to suggest any additions. Then, these same panellists will judge each RCR dimension on its importance within their discipline of expertise, with iterative rounds of ratings until stability is reached. In this latter phase, the goal is to probe which items are more broadly appreciated by the sample (i.e., those that are perceived as a universally valuable RCR practice), versus which might be more discipline specific. The findings will present the median importance ratings and categories of response agreement across the entire panel and between different disciplines. Finally, to contextualise these findings, the team will analyse qualitative findings from open-ended text responses with a simple form of thematic analysis. From this, the team will develop a framework, using the identified RCR dimensions, that reflects the needs of the academic community. 

 

By mapping a broader multidisciplinary perspective on RCR, this research will fill the gap between the two extremes that existing conceptualisations of RCR tend to fall under: high-level frameworks designed to be universally applicable across all disciplines (e.g., the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity) and prescriptive guides tailored to the practical instruction of researchers within a specific discipline or field (e.g., RCR training designed for members of a university department). The hope is that this will stimulate a more nuanced understanding and discussion of cross-disciplinary conceptions of RCR.

 

Five expert reviewers with field expertise assessed the Stage 1 manuscript over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed and informed responses to the reviewer’s comments, the recommenders 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/xmnu5
 
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:

 

 

References
 

Field, S. M., Thompson, J., van Drimmelen, T., Ferrar, J., Penders, B., de Rijcke, S., & Munafò, M. R. (2024). Mapping Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi Study. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xmnu5

Measuring people’s experiences, thoughts, and mental processes has always been a core challenge of psychological science (e.g. Nisbett & Wilson 1977). When such measurement further relates to rapidly changing and conceptually diverse human-technology interactions, the task becomes even more difficult due to protean, multidimensional constructs. A good understanding of a construct is a basic step in its measurement (Borsboom 2005).  
 
In the present registered report, Hickman Dunne et al. (2023) carry out a focus group study with adolescents (n=32) aged 11 to 15 in Northwest England to improve the understanding of constructs related to social media and mental health experiences. The work is carried out as part of a long-term measure development project. The authors apply reflexive thematic analysis to explore adolescents’ social media use experiences and related motivations in the light of mental health, in addition to which the adolescents’ own views of benefits and risks are mapped out.
 
A particular strength of the design is the engagement of three Young Researchers who will co-facilitate the focus groups and be involved in the analysis. The research plan also meets high reflexivity and transparency criteria, and as such, can significantly contribute to future scale development as well as our general understanding of adolescents’ social media experiences.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was reviewed over two rounds by five unique reviewers, one of which participated in both rounds. The reviewers’ expertise ranged from social media and technology use research to health psychology and qualitative methods. Based on careful revisions and detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/w24ec
 
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.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

• Collabra: Psychology
• F1000Research
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open
• WiderScreen 

 

References
 
1. Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. Cambridge University Press.

 

3. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological review, 84, 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231

2. Hickman Dunne J., Black L., Banwell E., Nanda P., Anderton M, Butters L.C., Demkowicz O., Davidson B., Qualter P., Humphrey N., Jay C., and Panayiotou M. (2023). Identifying relevant dimensions to the measurement of adolescent social media experience via focus groups with young people: A registered report. In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/w24ec

The rapid methodological development in digital humanities keeps opening new possibilities to better understand our cultural artifacts and, in the process, also ourselves. Some of the historically most influential works of literary human culture are the plays of Shakespeare, which continue to be read and treasured around the world. Although the social networks of Shakespeare’s plays have attracted scientific attention already more than two decades (Stiller et al. 2003), the understanding of their complexity in terms of character networks remains limited and not fully contextualized in the larger landscape of European drama.

 

In the present registered report, Thurn and colleagues (2024) apply Kolmogorov complexity analysis to investigate the social networks in 37 existing plays of Shakespeare. The authors replicate the original work by Stiller et al. (2003) and situate the findings in a larger regional context by further analyzing over 3,000 plays available in the European Drama Corpus. Ultimately, the authors explore the relationships between (Kolmogorov) complexity and the size of character networks as well as the robustness of their results in relation to possible researcher decisions in the analytic process.

 

This Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth review by four expert reviewers from the research fields of literature, networks, and social analysis. Based on the authors’ careful revisions and responses to the reviewers’ feedback, 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/6uw27
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been previously accessed by the authors (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certify that they have not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

• Collabra: Psychology
• International Review of Social Psychology
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Social Psychological Bulletin
• WiderScreen

 

 

1. Stiller, J., Nettle, D. & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2003). The small world of shakespeare’s plays. Human Nature, 14, 397-408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-003-1013-1

2. Thurn, C., Sebben, S. & Kovacevic, Z. (2024) Using Shakespeare to Answer Psychological Questions: Complexity and Mental Representability of Character Networks. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/6uw27

This is an ambitious systematic review that uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to make the measurement of the construct of social connection more rigorous. Social connection is a heterogeneous construct that includes aspects of structure, function and quality. Here, Paris et al. (2024) will use predefined methods to create a database of social connection measures, and will assess heterogeneity of items using human coders and ChatGPT. This database will form the basis of a second systematic review which will look at evidence for validity and measurement properties. This study will also look at the population groups and country of origin for which different measures were designed, making it possible to see how far culturally specific issues affect the content of measures in this domain.

 

The questions asked by this study are exploratory and descriptive and so the importance of pre-registration is in achieving clear criteria for how each question is addressed, rather than evidential criteria for hypothesis-testing.

 

The authors responded comprehensively to three reviewer reports. This study will provide a wealth of useful information for those studying social connection, and should serve to make the literature in this field more psychometrically robust and less fragmented.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/796uv
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been previously accessed by the authors (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certify that they have not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence. 
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

 

1. Paris, B., Brickau, D., Stoianova, T., Luhmann, M., Mikton, C., Holt-Lunstad, J., Maes, A., & IJzerman, H. (2024). A systematic review of social connection inventories. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/796uv