We may not believe what our memory tells us: Memory may deliver a compelling recollection we believe did not happen (we know we were not there at the time); and we may know an event happened that we fail to remember (even for when we were not drunk!). That is, there can be distrust in remembering and distrust in forgetting. Previous work by the authors has looked at this through a signal detection lens, reporting in separate studies that people who have distrust in remembering have either a high or low criterion for saying "old" (Zhang et al, 2023, 2024a). A plausible explanation for these contrasting results is that the criterion can either be the means by which false memories are generated enabling the distrust (low criterion); or rather, in conditions where accuracy is at stake, the means for compensating for the distrust (high criterion).

 

In the current study by Zhang et al (2024b), participants will be incentivised to be as accurate as possible, and in a memory test given feedback about commission errors or, in another group, ommission errors. As a manipulation check, the authors will test that the feedback increases distrust in remembering or distrust in forgetting, respectively, compared to a no feedback control group. Crucially, the authors hypothesize that people will adjust the criterion to say "old" in a compensatory way in each group. The study uses inference by intervals to provide a fairly severe test of this hypothesis.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over multiple rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' and recommender's comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/x69qt
 
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. Zhang, Y., Qi, F., Otgaar, H., Nash, R. A., & Jelicic, M. (2023). A Tale of Two Distrusts: Memory Distrust towards Commission and Omission Errors in the Chinese Context. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000134

 

2. Zhang, Y., Otgaar, H., Nash, R. A., & Rosar, L. (2024). Time and memory distrust shape the dynamics of recollection and belief-in-occurrence. Memory, 32, 484–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2024.2336166

 

3. Zhang, Y., Otgaar, H., Nash, R. A., & Li, C. (2024b). The effects of memory distrust toward commission and omission on recollection-belief correspondence and memory errors. In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/x69qt

 

One of the hallmarks of cognitive control is the ability to flexibly update attention and action when goals change. The prefrontal cortex has long been identified as important for such updating, but much remains to be understood about the anatomical and temporal mechanisms that support cognitive flexibility within prefrontal networks. In the current study, Jackson et al. (2024) build upon insights from recent transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and neuroimaging studies to investigate the critical role of prefrontal cortex for updating goals and selecting behaviourally-relevant stimuli.

 

To measure updating, the authors deploy an attentional switching paradigm in which participants selectively attend to one feature of a novel object (colour or form) while ignoring the other feature. On each trial, a symbol (called a rule cue) indicates whether to attend to the colour (green or blue) or to the form (X or non-X) of the upcoming object. By mapping each stimulus response to a separate button press (two buttons for the two colours; two buttons for the two features), the authors can then categorise different types of behavioural errors – focusing especially on attending incorrectly to the task-irrelevant feature (rule error) vs. applying the correct rule but failing to correctly identify the task-relevant feature (stimulus error). If disruption of a specific cortical region causes a selective increase in one type of error, then this would indicate that the stimulated region is important for either rule processing or stimulus processing.

 

The proposal includes a number of key features that add depth and rigor to the investigation. First, to probe the anatomical specificity of cognitive control, the authors will contrast the effect of TMS delivered to different prefrontal regions that reside within different networks and may have divergent roles in cognitive control: the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC, part of the multiple-demand network) and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC, part of the default mode network). Moreover, unlike many previous TMS studies, the authors will use electric field modelling to normalise cortical stimulation strength between regions, enabling a more controlled anatomical comparison. Second, since the task involves responding to a rule cue and then selectively attending to a task-relevant feature, it is likely that a particular brain region could be selectively critical at a specific time – for instance, if dlPFC were important for rule processing then it should only be necessary shortly after (or around) presentation of the rule cue. To capture the temporal specificity of cortical involvement, the authors will apply a short burst of TMS at different times, beginning either +150ms after the cue or +700ms during stimulus processing. In a preliminary study, the authors used magnetoencephalography (MEG) in combination with the same behavioural task and multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) to identify these epochs for TMS. Finally, the experiment includes a range of additional control conditions and quality checks to rule out alternative explanations of potential findings, such as TMS impairing perception of the rule cue rather than implementation of the rule, and the effect of peripheral TMS artefacts. Overall, the study promises to reveal a range of intriguing new insights into the timecourse and anatomical specificity of cognitive updating, with implications for theories of prefrontal cortical function.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' and recommender’s 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/94sgu (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:

 

 

 

Jackon, J. B, Runhao, L., & Woolgar, A. (2024). Causal dynamics of task-relevant rule and stimulus processing in prefrontal cortex. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/94sgu

In neurostimulation research, the parameters of a stimulation protocol crucially impact on the effects of the stimulation. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a neurostimulation technique that typically uses current intensities about 1-2 mA in human research to modulate motor and cognitive behavior. The current sham-controlled study by Hsu et al. (2024) applies current intensities not only of 2 mA but also of 4 mA and 6 mA and thus extends our understanding of stimulation parameters while ethical standards are preserved.

 

The influence of tDCS over the primary motor cortex will be evaluated for neural plasticity during motor learning. Stimulation effects will be tested not only behaviorally but also physiologically by motor evoked potentials elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). The presented pilot data are promising and underline the feasibility of the proposed research design. The study will contribute to tDCS research by uncovering reasons for controversial findings and thus increase reproducibility.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth 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/jyuev
 
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:

 

• Brain and Neuroscience Advances
• Imaging Neuroscience
• NeuroImage: Reports
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica

 

 

Hsu, G., Edwards, D. J., Cohen, L. G., & Parra, L. C. (2024). Dose-response of tDCS effects on motor learning and cortical excitability: a preregistered study. In principle acceptance of Version 1.3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/jyuev

​​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

Both research and public debates around social media use tend to involve a premise of positivity bias, which refers to presenting one’s life in an overly positive light by various different means. This premise contributes to multiple potentially important follow-up hypotheses, such as the fear of missing out and low self-image effects, due to repeated consumption of positive social media content (e.g., Bayer et al. 2020, for a review). The positivity bias of social media use, itself, has received limited research attention, however. 
 
In the present study, Masciantonio and colleagues (2024) will test positivity bias in the context of three social media platforms: Facebook, Instagram, and X. The experiment involves recruiting participants into platform-specific user groups and crafting posts to be shared with friends as well as respective social media audiences. If positivity bias manifests in this context, the social media posts should introduce more positive valence in comparison to offline sharing—and if the platforms differ in their encouragement of positivity bias, they should introduce significant between-platform differences in valence.
 
The Stage 1 plan was reviewed by four independent experts representing relevant areas of methodological and topic expertise. Three reviewers proceeded throughout three rounds of review, after which the study was considered having met all Stage 1 criteria and the recommender granted in-principle acceptance. 
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/9z6hm
 
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. Bayer, J. B., Triệu, P., & Ellison, N. B. (2020). Social media elements, ecologies, and effects. Annual review of psychology, 71, 471-497. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050944

 

2. Masciantonio, A., Heiser, N., & Cherbonnier, A. (2024). Unveiling the Positivity Bias on Social Media: A Registered Experimental Study On Facebook, Instagram, And X. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/9z6hm