COVID-19 has been suspected to have long-lasting effects on cognitive function. The SARS-CoV-2 virus may enter the central nervous system (Frontera et al., 2020; Miners, Kehoe, & Love, 2020), explaining the observed detrimental effects of COVID-19 on verbal planning and reasoning (Hampshire et al., 2021; Wild et al., 2021), executive function (Hadad et al., 2022), and long-term memory (Guo et al., 2022). In particular, Guo et al. (2022) used verbal item recognition and non-verbal associative memory tasks. Weinerova et al. (2024), in the current study, propose to conduct a replication of Guo et al. (2022), but specifically, to disentangle the effect of COVID-19 infection status on both memory type (item vs. associative) and stimulus modality (verbal vs. non-verbal). Furthermore, Weinerova et al. (2024) propose to analyze cognitive function based on vaccination status before infection to provide a critical test of the potential protective effects of vaccination on cognitive function.

Data collection has been completed with 325 participants after exclusion criteria were applied (COVID group N = 232, No COVID group N = 93). Simulations assuming an effect size observed in Guo et al. (2022), a Bayesian t-test comparing the groups, and a Bayes Factor of 6 indicated that N = 320 is sufficient to detect an effect on 79% of simulations. The main analyses will be conducted using a Bayesian ANCOVA that allows for the inclusion of control variables such as age, sex, country, and education level. Both accuracy and reaction times from the item and associative recognition tasks will be analyzed as the dependent variables. In one analysis, vaccination status will be included as a between-subjects factor, to understand whether vaccination status at the time of infection influences subsequent cognitive function. 

It is important to note that participants were recruited through long-COVID Facebook groups and clinics. Therefore, the results must be interpreted carefully to avoid generalizing to all COVID-19 infections. The data are part of a larger longitudinal study, and the current pre-registration applies only to the baseline timepoint for a cross-sectional analysis. The remaining longitudinal data collection is ongoing and is not part of the current pre-registration.  

The study plan was refined after one round of review, with input from three external reviewers who all agreed that the proposed study was well-designed and scientifically valid. The recommender then reviewed the revised manuscript and judged that the study met the Stage 1 criteria for in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/tjs5u (under temporary private embargo)
 
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. Frontera, J., Mainali, S., Fink, E.L. et al. Global Consortium Study of Neurological Dysfunction in COVID-19 (GCS-NeuroCOVID): Study Design and Rationale. Neurocrit Care 33, 25–34 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-020-00995-3

2. Guo, P., Benito Ballesteros, A., Yeung, S. P., Liu, R., Saha, A., Curtis, L., Kaser, M., Haggard, M. P. & Cheke, L. G. (2022). COVCOG 2: Cognitive and Memory Deficits in Long COVID: A Second Publication From the COVID and Cognition Study. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2022.804937  

3. Hadad, R., Khoury, J., Stanger, C., Fisher, T., Schneer, S., Ben-Hayun, R., Possin, K., Valcour, V., Aharon-Peretz, J. & Adir, Y. (2022). Cognitive dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. Journal of NeuroVirology, 28(3), 430–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13365-022-01079-y  

4. Hampshire, A., Trender, W., Chamberlain, S. R., Jolly, A. E., Grant, J. E., Patrick, F., Mazibuko, N., Williams, S. C., Barnby, J. M., Hellyer, P. & Mehta, M. A. (2021). Cognitive deficits in people who have recovered from COVID-19. EClinicalMedicine, 39, 101044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101044

5. Miners, S., Kehoe, P. G., & Love, S. (2020). Cognitive impact of COVID-19: looking beyond the short term. Alzheimer's research & therapy, 12, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-020-00744-w 

 

6. Weinerova, J., Yeung, S., Guo, P., Yau, A., Horne, C., Ghinn, M., Curtis, L., Adlard, F., Bhagat, V., Zhang, S., Kaser, M., Bozic, M., Schluppeck, D., Reid, A., Tibon, R. & Cheke, L. G. (2024). Changes in memory function in adults following SARS-CoV-2 infection: findings from the Covid and Cognition online study. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/tjs5u

7. Wild, C. J., Norton, L., Menon, D. K., Ripsman, D. A., Swartz, R. H. & Owen, A. M. (2022). Disentangling the cognitive, physical, and mental health sequelae of COVID-19. Cell Reports Medicine, 3, 100750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100750 

Paid loot boxes, i.e. randomised monetization methods that are similar to lottery-type gambling, have become prominent features of contemporary gaming (e.g., Macey & Bujić, 2022). Because the design structures of loot boxes vary and the value of their virtual rewards is not always clear-cut, many countries now struggle how to deal with them legally and in practice (see Drummond et al., 2020). Belgium is one of the few countries that have officially interpreted loot box monetization to widely belong under gambling regulation. Mobile games that monetize with paid loot boxes in Belgium should thus apply for a gambling license, and companies should generally not offer paid loot boxes to local underage players at all.
 
In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Xiao (2022) has constructed a careful plan for testing whether the “ban” in Belgium has made the local mobile game market distinct in terms of paid loot boxes. The work builds on a rapidly accumulating literature and evolving methods (e.g., Xiao et al., 2021). The author will carry out a systematic qualitative investigation of the country’s top 100 (iPhone) mobile games to investigate whether paid loot box design components have indeed been removed from the products -- and if not, whether related game companies operate with a required gambling license. Additionally, Xiao (2022) will assess Belgium’s overall paid loot box prevalence in comparison to other countries and carry out a field experiment to test whether players can easily circumvent the local regulation by transporting or downloading different versions of software.
 
The study will produce valuable evidence regarding the effectiveness of loot box regulation in general, and more specifically, the results should be of utmost interest to Belgian legal authorities. To ensure the transparency and validity of the chosen methods as well as upcoming interpretations, the registered report format allowed the research design to be reviewed in three rounds before data collection. Three experts, representing the fields of law and gaming, reviewed the Stage 1 manuscript twice and agreed upon the acceptance of all details. Finally, the recommender carried out a third iteration with further requested revisions, which was followed by in-principle acceptance. 

 

Mindset theories suggest that the mere belief in the malleability of human abilities can already help one to develop related performance. On the other hand, one and the same performance situation can also be experienced in various affective ways, which differently contribute to performance outcomes. Arguably, appraising a performance situation as a “threat” instead of “challenge” is associated with maladaptive responses, such as impaired cardiovascular mobilization. If people could experience performance situations as positive challenges, this might also improve performance outcomes. Drawing from these connected theoretical premises, the synergistic mindset intervention was developed and tentatively found to help adolescents in stressful situations (Yeager et al., 2022).
 
In the present registered report, Behnke et al. (2023) build on the above and test whether the synergistic mindset intervention can help individuals in competitive gaming situations. The authors utilize one of the leading esport games, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive​, and recruit its active players into randomized control and intervention groups for two weeks. Ultimately, the participants compete in a cash-prize tournament involving measures of affective experience and cardiovascular responses. Behnke et al. (2023) hypothesize that the synergistic mindset group will show greater challenge affective responses and superior performance outcomes. As such, the study design has significant potential to generate valuable evidence for various theoretical models and the synergistic mindset model in particular.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds by four experts with experimental psychology specializations in mindsets, stress, and statistics. Based on the comprehensive 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/z3adb
 
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.

 

 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• F1000Research
• Journal of Cognition
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

References
 
Behnke M., Lakens D., Petrova K., Chwiłkowska P., Kaczmarek L. D., Jamieson J. P., & Gross J. J. (2023) Optimizing Esports Performance Using a Synergistic Mindsets Intervention. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/z3adb

Yeager D.S., Bryan C.J., Gross J.J., Murray J., Krettek D., Santos P., ... & Jamieson J.P. (2022) A synergistic mindsets intervention protects adolescents from stress. Nature 607, 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04907-7

In the past two decades, most academic fields have witnessed an open science revolution that has led to significant increases in open access publishing, reproducibility efforts, and scientific transparency in general (e.g., Spellman et al. 2018). One of the key areas in this ongoing change is data sharing. Although some evidence already points at progress in data sharing practices, many new datasets remain unshared (see Tedersoo et al. 2021).
 
In the present registered report, Henderson et al. (2023) empirically explore the factors that either hinder or facilitate data sharing in the UK. By means of semi-structured interviews, the team will chart researchers’ experiences of sharing and non-sharing. Thematic template analysis will be applied to organise the data into a hierarchical map of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations in a theoretical domains framework (COM-B-TDF). The research plan itself meets the highest open science standards and reflects on the authors own positions, from which the current qualitative interview data sharing efforts will be made.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was reviewed over three rounds by three experts with familiary of the UK cultural context and specializations in open science practices, qualitative research, and data infrastructures. 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/2gm5s (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:

 

 

References
 
1. Henderson, E., Marcu, A., Atkins, L. & Farran, E.K. (2023). Investigating the barriers and enablers to data sharing behaviours: A qualitative Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/2gm5s

 

2. Spellman, B. A., Gilbert, E. A. & Corker, K. S. (2018). Open Science. Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119170174.epcn519

 

3. Tedersoo, L., Küngas, R., Oras, E., Köster, K., Eenmaa, H., Leijen, Ä., ... & Sepp, T. (2021). Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines. Scientific data, 8, 192. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00981-0

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