The replication crisis/credibility revolution has driven a vast number of changes to our research environment (Korbmacher et al., 2023) including a much needed spotlight on issues surrounding measurement (Flake & Fried, 2020). As general understanding and awareness has increased surrounding the 'garden of forking paths' or 'researcher degrees of freedom' (Simmons et al., 2011), and the various decisions made during the scientific process that could impact the conclusions drawn by the process, so too should our interest in meta-research that tells us more about the methodological processes we follow, and how discretionary decisions may influence the design, analysis and reporting of a project.

 

Peeters et al. (2025) have proposed a systematic literature review of this nature, mapping the methodological variation in experience sampling methods (ESM) from the design stage all the way to dissemination. It starts this journey by mapping how ESM studies vary e.g., in design, considering a variety of factors like sample size, number of measurements, and sampling scheme. It also evaluates reporting quality, rationales provided, and captures the extent of open science practices adopted. Covering many parts of the research process that get assumed, unreported or otherwise unjustified, the proposed work looks set to springboard an important body of work that can tell us more effectively how to design, implement and report ESM studies.

 

The Stage 1 submission was reviewed over one round of in-depth review with two reviewers. Based on detailed responses to reviewers’ feedback, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.

 

 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 1. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been accessed and observed by the authors, including key variables, but the authors certify that they have not yet performed any of their preregistered analyses, and in addition they have taken stringent steps to reduce the risk of bias.
 
List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals:

 

 

1. Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3, 456-465. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393

 

2. Korbmacher, M., Azevedo, F., Pennington, C. R., Hartmann, H., Pownall, M., Schmidt, K., ... & Evans, T. (2023). The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes. Communications Psychology, 1, 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-023-00003-2

 

3. Peeters, L., Van Den Noortgate, W., Blanchard, M. A., Eisele, G., Kirtley, O., Artner, R., & Lafit, G. (2025). Mapping Methodological Variation in ESM Research from Design to Data Analysis: A Systematic Review. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ztvn3

 

4. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359-1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632

The human capacity and need for play has been recognized as a central psychotherapeutic component for a long time (e.g. Winnicott 1971). More recently, experts have started developing specialized digital gameplay to be used as therapeutic tools and even utilizing existing videogames for similar purposes (see Ceranoglu 2010). On the other hand, the concerns about some players becoming overinvolved in videogames also led the World Health Organization to include “gaming disorder” in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases, which echoes the nuance required to address human-technology relationships in general.  
 
In the present registered report, Billieux et al. (2024) make use of analog structured role-play in a new intervention aiming to mitigate social anxiety and problematic gaming patterns in online gamers. The authors carried out an exploratory pilot to test a 10-week protocol over three modules inspired by the well-known Dungeons & Dragons franchise. Through a multiple single-case design with a 3-month follow-up, the authors carried out the pilot with 20 participants (two dropped out), which enabled collecting valuable early data about the feasibility and potential of the intervention. 
 
Weekly psychometric assessments indicated that the intervention may support participants and it should continue to be studied in order to comprehensively evaluate its effectiveness. Feedback obtained from participants and other parts of the pilot project enabled identifying elements (e.g., difficulty adjustments), which can be given attention usefully in intervention development. Without question, the study by Billieux et al. (2024) is to be commended for highly transparent documentation of the project, which allows future researchers and intervention developers to learn from the pilot beyond initial results. Among other relevant materials, the supplements provide a detailed case study and item-level psychometric reporting, which can help the development of technical solutions and new hypotheses.
 
Taken together, the study by Billieux et al. (2024) paves the way for open science invention piloting in the field. The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated by three experts (areas: experimental methods, psychopathology, gaming) via in-depth peer review across two rounds. Based on the authors’ careful responses and revisions, the revised manuscript was judged to meet the Stage 2 criteria and was awarded a positive recommendation. 
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/h7qat

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: 

 

• Collabra: Psychology
• F1000Research
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

References
 
1. Billieux, J., Fournier, L., Rochat, L., Georgieva, I., Eben, C., Malmdorf Andersen, M., King, D., Simon, O., Khazaal, Y., Lieberoth, A. & Blocha., J. (2024) Can playing Dungeons and Dragons be good for you? A registered exploratory pilot program using offline Tabletop Role-Playing Games (TTRPGs) to mitigate social anxiety and reduce problematic involvement in multiplayer online videogames [Stage 2 RR]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/z32d5

 

2. Ceranoglu, T. (2010). Video Games in Psychotherapy. Review of General Psychology, 14 (2). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019439

 

3. Winnicott, D. (1971/2009). Playing and Reality. Routledge.

Note from the PCI RR Managing Board: This Stage 1 recommendation was originally written by Esther Sebastián González for PCI Ecology on 06 Oct 2020 and was transferred to PCI Registered Reports on 14 Jan 2025 to facilitate the submission and evaluation of the resulting Stage 2 submissions. The link to the original recommendation and review history at PCI Ecology may be found at this link (and in PDF format here).

 

===

 

Understanding the relative importance of species-specific traits and environmental factors in modulating species distributions is an intriguing question in ecology [1]. Both behavioral flexibility (i.e., the ability to change the behavior in changing circumstances) and habitat availability are known to influence the ability of a species to expand its geographic range [2,3]. However, the role of each factor is context and species dependent and more information is needed to understand how these two factors interact. In this pre-registration, Logan et al. [4] explain how they will use Great-tailed grackles (Quiscalus mexicanus), a species with a flexible behavior and a rapid geographic range expansion, to evaluate the relative role of habitat and behavior as drivers of the species’ expansion [4]. The authors present very clear hypotheses, predicted results and also include alternative predictions. The rationales for all the hypotheses are clearly stated, and the methodology (data and analyses plans) are described with detail. The large amount of information already collected by the authors for the studied species during previous projects warrants the success of this study. It is also remarkable that the authors will make all their data available in a public repository, and that the pre-registration in already stored in GitHub, supporting open access and reproducible science. I agree with the three reviewers of this pre-registration about its value and I think its quality has largely improved during the review process. Thus, I am happy to recommend it and I am looking forward to seeing the results.

 

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 1. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been accessed and observed by the authors, including key variables, but the authors certify that they have not yet performed any of their preregistered analyses, and in addition they have taken stringent steps to reduce the risk of bias.
 
List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals:
 

 

 

[1] Gaston KJ. 2003. The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. Oxford series in Ecology and Evolution. Oxford University Press, New York.

 

[2] Sol D, Lefebvre L. 2000. Behavioural flexibility predicts invasion success in birds introduced to new zealand. Oikos. 90(3): 599–605. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900317.x

 

[3] Hanski I, Gilpin M. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: Brief history and conceptual domain. Biological journal of the Linnean Society. 42(1-2): 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1991.tb00548.x

 

[4] Logan CJ, McCune KB, Chen N, Lukas D. 2020. Implementing a rapid geographic range expansion - the role of behavior and habitat changes (http://corinalogan.com/Preregistrations/gxpopbehaviorhabitat.html) In principle acceptance by PCI Ecology of the version on 16 Dec 2021 https://github.com/corinalogan/grackles/blob/0fb956040a34986902a384a1d8355de65010effd/Files/Preregistrations/gxpopbehaviorhabitat.Rmd

 

=======

 

Full review history: [link]

 

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) refers to a range of neurodegenerative diseases involving progressive deterioration of frontal and temporal brain networks. This scoping review protocol by Carneiro et al. (2024) promises to make a valuable contribution to the conceptualization of dysregulated interoception (the ability to sense and interpret internal bodily signals) and allostasis (anticipation and adjustment of energy use in response to environmental demands) in the context of FTD. The work also has broader implications, potentially offering key insights into the interplay between sensory and regulatory signals, which hold relevance not only for dementia but also for other mental disorders characterized by maladaptive allostatic adaptations, such as addiction. This broader applicability underscores the potential impact of the review across multiple domains of mental health research.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on ​detailed responses to reviewers’ and the recommender’s 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/skebz
 
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:

 

• Cortex
• In&Vertebrates
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica

 
References

Carneiro, F., Hazelton, J. L., Campos, C., Ibáñez, A., & Ferreira-Santos, F. (2024). Allostatic interoception in frontotemporal dementia: a scoping review protocol. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/skebz

Self-affirmation may be an effective tool to reduce prejudice and discrimination against minority groups. Its hypothesised mechanism is that prejudice is a defensive act that can be reduced by reinforcing a positive imagine of the self. Such a reinforced self-image is meant to weaken perceived threat to one’s social identity that may be posed by minority groups, such as Muslims in majority Christian countries.

 

To address mixed evidence for the effectiveness of self-affirmation across the literature, this Registered Report (RR) was designed to elucidate conditions under which self-affirmation may reduce prejudice and discrimination. Whether self-affirmation has the desired effect may be moderated by an individual’s internal representation of secularism. That is, as a reaction to self-affirmation, people may flexibly endorse their feelings towards secularism (‘ideological malleability’) to either reduce prejudice, or maintain and justify it. This study is the first to consider whether this effect depends on a participant’s attitude that French citizens should be able to practice their religion in public places (‘historical’ secularism), or that they should hide it in public (‘new’ secularism).

 

Alnajjar et al. present a study design (i.e., three-way mixed ANOVA) in which they self-affirmed French participants (N=602) with differing internal representations of secularism. Study results demonstrated that a historical representation of secularism is associated with less effective and behavioural prejudice towards religious groups compared to a new representation of secularism. Participants’ prejudiced attitudes were larger against Muslims than against Christians. It was unexpected that new secularism was linked to negative attitudes towards religious minority groups given that the French government mandated by law that religion should not be practiced in public. Across three self-affirmation conditions (i.e., self-affirmation on a threat-related value, a threat-unrelated value, and no self-affirmation), the authors found no evidence that self-affirmation affected prejudice against religious groups, and there was no evidence that the effectiveness of self-affirmation depended on a participants representation of secularism, which contradicted their pre-registered hypotheses. This paper adds conclusive and sufficiently-powered results to a body of literature with mixed evidence for the effectiveness of self-affirmation.

 

It increased the robustness of this study that the design considered desirability concerns and employed multiple manipulation checks. By considering nuances of public opinion towards secularism in France specifically, the authors identified a unique opportunity to investigate ideological malleability, which can be challenging to conceive and directly measure. 

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated by two experts who performed in-depth peer review across one round of revisions. There were no substantial changes to the introduction or the methods, the analyses were conducted as planned and additional analyses were labelled as exploratory. The revised manuscript was judged to meet the Stage 2 criteria and was awarded a positive recommendation. 

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/f4wm6

 

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:

 

• Collabra Psychology
• International Review of Social Psychology
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Social Psychological Bulletin
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

 

1. Alnajjar, Y., Badea, C., & Sternberg, B. (2024). Self-Affirmation and Prejudice Against Religious Groups: The Role of Ideological Malleability [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/st47h