Open science practices (OSPs, e.g., preregistration, open materials, code and data) aim to enhance the transparency, integrity, and reproducibility of research. Recent work, however, has highlighted various facilitators and barriers perceived by researchers in implementing these, which can either enhance or hinder their success. Little is known about these barriers in the context of Slovakia, and such perceptions are rarely investigated for policy makers and media representatives who are also embedded in the research ecosystem.

 

In their Stage 1 Registered Report, Marcel Martončik and colleagues aim to map the perceptions and experiences of barriers and facilitators of OSPs that are unique to different stakeholder groups in Slovakia. They will conduct both semi-structured interviews and focus groups with a diverse sample of postgraduate students, researchers, policymakers, and media representatives from the field of psychology. Reflexive thematic analysis will identify overarching themes regarding such barriers and facilitators which will provide valuable insights into the support required to make OSPs normative across different stakeholder groups.

 

Four expert reviewers assessed the Stage 1 manuscript across two rounds of in-depth review. Based on the authors' detailed and informed responses to the reviewer’s comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in principle acceptance (IPA).

 

 
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:

 

 

 

Martončik, M., Adamkovič, M., Baník G., Fedáková, D., Issmailová, S., Kačmár, P., Kentoš, M., Majdáková, V., Papcunová, J., & Vargová, L. (2024). Barriers and facilitators to the adoption and promotion of Open Science practices in psychology. The case of Slovakia. In principle acceptance of Version 1.1 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/n86um

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 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—carried out as part of a long-term measure development project—Dunne et al. (2024) carried out a focus group study with adolescents (n=26) aged 11 to 15 in Northwest England to improve the understanding of constructs related to social media and mental health. The authors applied reflexive thematic analysis to explore adolescents’ social media use experiences and related motivations in the light of mental health.
 
The data and research process led to a construction of five themes, which were connected to mental health in direct and indirect ways. The participants voiced direct experiences of anxiety, self-esteem, and social aspects that reflect a mental health network where social media play diverse roles. Indirect implications of coping and self-control were found to supplement the network. Taken together, the themes and their implications to wellbeing make a valuable contribution to the evolving qualitative understanding young people's social media use in the UK (e.g., Conroy et al. 2023) and serve as a useful basis for future measure development.
 
A particular strength of the work was the engagement of three Young Researchers who co-facilitated the focus groups and were involved in the analysis. The research meets high reflexivity and transparency criteria, and the carefully constructed supplementary materials provide informative details especially for measure developers. Finally, the authors must be commended for sharing these valuable data for reuse.
 
The Stage 2 manuscript was reviewed over two rounds by three unique reviewers. 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 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/w24ec
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence had been accessed and partially observed by the authors prior to IPA, but the authors certify that they have not yet observed the key variables within the data that were 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.
 
2. Conroy, D., Chadwick, D., Fullwood, C., & Lloyd, J. (2023). “You have to know how to live with it without getting to the addiction part”: British young adult experiences of smartphone overreliance and disconnectivity. Psychology of Popular Media, 12, 471-480. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000425

 

3. Dunne, J. H., Black, L., Banwell, E., Nanda, P., Anderton, M, Butters, L.C., Demkowicz, O., Davies, J., Davidson, B., Qualter, P., Humphrey, N., Jay, C., & Panayiotou, M. (2024). Identifying relevant dimensions to the measurement of adolescent social media experience via focus groups with young people [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 9 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/erjvz
 
4. 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

When does the perceived wastefulness of different actions affect people's choices? In an influential set of studies examining different conceptions of wastefulness (overspending, underutilization, and sunk costs), Arkes (1996) found a systematic aversion to wastefulness in decision making, even when choosing to avoid wastefulness has no economic value or works against personal interest. While these findings have been influential in basic and applied research, there have been no attempts to directly replicate the results. Moreover, the original study had several methodological limitations, including the use of relatively small samples and critical gaps in statistical reporting and analyses.

 

In the current study, Zhu and Feldman (2024) conducted a high-powered replication of Arkes (1996) using an online sample of participants (N=659). The authors incorporated several extentions to improve the methodological rigor relative to the original article, including comprehension checks, manipulation checks, a within-subjects design, and a novel quantitative analysis of participants' self-reported motivations for their choices. The authors successfully replicated the effect of perceived wastefulness on two of the three scenarios used in the original article, but participants' self-reported reasons for their choices only provided partial support for the role of perceived wastefulness in decisions, with behavioral consistency and maximizing economic value also playing a role. The original effect was not observed in a third scenario, with a failed manipulation check that may indicate changes in the perceptions of wastefulness in the domain (tax preparation). Overall, the results provide some support for the role of wastefulness aversion in decision making, while also showing that perceived wastefulness might be outweighted by other considerations depending on how people interpret or reason about a situation.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review by the recommender and two expert reviewers. Following revision, 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/r7tsw
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

 

1. Arkes, H. R. (1996). The psychology of waste. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9,
213-224. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199609)9:3%3C213::AID-BDM230%3E3.0.CO;2-1

 

2. Zhu, Z. and Feldman, G. (2024). Revisiting the Psychology of Waste: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Arkes (1996) [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/2jnc8

Investigative interviews are structured social interactions where interviewers seek information from interviewees to address various objectives (e.g., Neequaye, 2023). Across diverse contexts such as eyewitness recall or intelligence gathering (e.g., Geiselman et al., 1986; Granhag & Hartwig, 2015), interviewees must first identify their interviewer’s goals before deciding whether to cooperate or resist their requests. This is the central focus of the current study.

 

In a prior study, Neequaye and Lorson (2023) made an unexpected discovery: interviewees tended to assume their interviewer was interested in all the information they possessed on a topic, regardless of the specificity of the questions (high vs. low specificity). The current submission by Neequaye and Lorson (2025) seeks to replicate these findings while addressing two potential confounds from the earlier research.

 

Replication 1 utilizes a within-subjects design for question-specificity trials, while Replication 2 employs a between-subjects design. In both replications, participants indicate what they believe their interviewer wants to know using free-text responses rather than selecting from predefined options. The authors present clear hypotheses, predicted outcomes, and alternative predictions, supported by well-reasoned rationales. Furthermore, the methodology, including data collection and analysis plans, is described in detail and has undergone review by three experts. Based on the expert reviews and the authors’ responses, the recommender concluded that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and granted in-principle acceptance.

 

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question already exists AND is accessible in principle to the authors, but the authors certify that they have not yet accessed any part of that 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
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open 
   

 

1. Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., MacKinnon, D. P., & Holland, H. L. (1986). Enhancement of eyewitness memory with the cognitive interview. The American Journal of Psychology, 99, 385-401. https://doi.org/10.2307/1422492

 

2. Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2015). The Strategic Use of Evidence Technique: A Conceptual Overview. In A. Vrij & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Deception detection: Current challenges and new directions (pp. 231–251). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118510001.ch10

 

3. Neequaye, D. A. (2023). Why Rapport Seems Challenging to Define and What to Do About the Challenge. Collabra: Psychology, 9, 90789. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.90789

 

4. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2023). How intelligence interviewees mentally identify relevant information. Royal Society Open Science, 10(8), 230986. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230986

 

5. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2025). How Interviewees Determine What Interviewers Want to Know. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/9suze

As children grow, their cognition develops alongside their metacognition – the awareness and understanding of their own thought processes. One important aspect of cognitive development is learning effective strategies for exploring new situations and testing surprising claims, prompting the question of how improvement in cognition and reasoning is related to metacognitive understanding of these processes. For example, as children develop more targeted and efficient exploration strategies to test a surprising claim (e.g. “of these three rocks, the smallest one is the heaviest”), metacognitive understanding of why they are uncertain or skeptical may be crucial to testing the claim effectively and, in the long run, developing more complex reasoning and logical skills.

 

In this lab-based study of 174 children, Hermansen et al. (2024) tested the role of metacognition in shaping how children search for information to test surprising claims. Using a series of measures – including an experimental task involving comparative claims (e.g. “this rubber duck sinks much faster than this metal button”) – the authors asked whether older (relative to younger) children express more uncertainty about surprising claims, propose more plausible reasons for their uncertainty, and are more likely to suggest specific empirical tests for a claim. Furthermore, they investigated whether prompting children to reflect on their uncertainty helps them devise an efficient test for the claim, and whether any such benefit of prompting is greater for younger children.

 

Results provided mixed support for the hypotheses. Contrary to expectations, older children were not more likely than younger children to express uncertainty about surprising claims -- although an exploratory analysis suggested that prior belief may moderate the relationship with age. Consistent with predictions, older children did, however, propose more plausible reasons for their uncertainty and were more likely to suggest specific empirical tests for a claim. Interestingly, prompting children to reflect on their uncertainty did not significantly increase the likelihood that they would generate an efficient test for a claim, although exploratory analysis again suggested that taking to account additional variables (in this case the type of explanation children provide when prompted) could moderate the effect. Taken together, these findings suggest that the development of children’s reasoning about their own beliefs influences their empirical evaluation of those beliefs. Overall, the study highlights the role of metacognition in the development of explicit scientific thinking and suggests a variety of promising avenues for future research.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth 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/uq6dw
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA. 
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

 

1. Hermansen T. K., Mathisen, K. F., & Ronfard, S. (2024). When children can explain why they believe a claim, they suggest better empirical tests for those claims [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/6ket7?view_only=d86eb8b5296b4499801e052a6a22291f