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

Words have served as stimuli in memory experiments for over a century. What makes some words stand out in memory compared to others? One plausible answer is that semantically rich words are more distinctive and therefore exhibit a mirror effect in recognition memory experiments where they are likely to be correctly endorsed and also less likely to be confused with other words (Glanzer & Adams, 1985). Semantic richness can arise due to extensive prior experience with the word in multiple contexts but can also arise due to sensorimotor grounding, i.e., direct perceptual and action-based experience with the concepts represented by the words (e.g. pillow, cuddle). However, previous experiments have revealed inconsistent recognition memory performance patterns for words based on different types of sensorimotor grounding (Dymarska et al., 2023). Most surprisingly, body-related words such as cuddle and fitness exhibited greater false alarm rates. 

In the current study, Dymarska and Connell (2023) propose to test two competing theories that can explain the increased confusability of body-related words: 1) the adaptive account - contextual elaboration-based strategies activate other concepts related to body and survival, increasing confusability; and 2) the attentional account - somatic attentional mechanisms automatically induce similar tactile and interoceptive experiences upon seeing body-related words leading to less distinctive memory traces. The adaptive account leads to different predictions under intentional and incidental memory conditions. Specifically, contextual elaboration strategies are unlikely to be employed when participants do not expect a memory test and therefore in an incidental memory task, body-related words should not lead to inflated false alarm rates (see Hintzman (2011) for a discussion on incidental memory tasks and the importance of how material is processed during memory tasks). However, the attentional account is not dependent on the task instructions or the knowledge about an upcoming memory test. 

Here, Dymarska and Connell (2023) have designed an incidental recognition memory experiment with over 5000 words, disguised as a lexical decision task using carefully matched pseudowords during the encoding phase. The sample size will be determined by using a sequential hypothesis testing plan with Bayes Factors. To test the predictions of the adaptive and attentional accounts, the authors derive a set of lexical and sensorimotor variables (including a body-component) after dimensionality reduction of a comprehensive set of lexical and semantic word features. The analysis will involve running both Bayesian and frequentist hierarchical linear regression to explain four different measures of recognition memory performance based on the key sensorimotor variables and other baseline/confounding variables. While this analysis plan enables a comparison with the earlier results from an expected memory test (Dymarska et al., 2023), the current study is self-contained in that it is possible to distinguish the adaptive and attentional accounts based on the effect of body component scores on hit rate and false alarm rate.

The study plan was refined across two rounds of review, with input from two external reviewers after which the recommender judged that the study satisfied the Stage 1 criteria for in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/ck5bg
 
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:
 

 

Dymarska, A. & Connell, L. (2023). Sensorimotor Effects in Surprise Word Memory – a Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ck5bg

Dymarska, A., Connell, L. & Banks, B. (2023). More is Not Necessarily Better: How Different Aspects of Sensorimotor Experience Affect Recognition Memory for Words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, Cognition. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001265 

Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory. Memory & cognition, 13, 8-20.

Hintzman, D. L. (2011). Research strategy in the study of memory: Fads, fallacies, and the search for the “coordinates of truth”. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), 253-271.

In 2023, the journal eLife ended the practice of making binary accept/reject decisions following peer review, instead sharing peer review reports (for manuscripts that are peer-reviewed) and brief “eLife assessments” representing the consensus opinions of editors and peer reviewers. As part of these assessments, the journal draws language from a "common vocabulary" to linguistically rank the significance of findings and strength of empirical support for the article's conclusions. In particular, the significance of findings is described using an ordinal scale of terms from "landmark" → "fundamental" → "important" → "valuable" → "useful", while the strength of support is ranked across six descending levels from "exceptional" down to "inadequate".

 

In the current study, Hardwicke et al. (2023) question the validity of this taxonomy, noting a range of linguistic ambiguities and counterintuitive characteristics that may undermine the communication of research evaluations to readers. Given the centrality of this common vocabulary to the journal's policy, the authors propose a study to explore whether the language used in the eLife assessments will be interpreted as intended by readers. Using a repeated-measures experimental design, they will tackle three aims: first, to understand the extent to which people share similar interpretations of phrases used to describe scientific research; second, to reveal the extent to which people’s implicit ranking of phrases used to describe scientific research aligns with each other and with the intended ranking; and third, to test whether phrases used to describe scientific research have overlapping interpretations. The proposed study has the potential to make a useful contribution to metascience, as well as being a valuable source of information for other journals potentially interested in following the novel path made by eLife.

 

The Stage 1 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 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/mkbtp
 
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. Hardwicke, T. E., Schiavone, S., Clarke, B. & Vazire, S. (2023). Finding the right words to evaluate research: An empirical appraisal of eLife’s assessment vocabulary. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/mkbtp

The Virtual Maze Task (VMT) is a digital desktop 2D spatial learning task that has been used for research into the effect of sleep and dreaming on memory consolidation (e.g. Wamsley et al, 2010). One limitation of this task has been low rates of reported dream incorporation. Eudave and colleagues (2023) have created an immersive virtual reality (iVR) version of the VMT, which they believe might be more likely to be incorporated into dreams. As an initial step in validating this task for research, they propose a within-subjects study to compare three measures of spatial learning between the 2D desktop and iVR versions. Based on a review of relevant literature, the prediction is that performance will be similar between the two task versions. The planned sample size (n = 62) is sufficient for a .9 power test of equivalence within effect size bounds of d = -.47 to .47. Additional independent variables (gender, perspective-taking ability) and dependent measures (self-reported cybersickness and sense of presence) will be recorded for exploratory analyses.

 

The study plan was refined across four rounds of review, with input from two external reviewers and the recommender, after which it was judged to satisfy the Stage 1 criteria for in-principle acceptance (IPA).†

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/wba2v
 
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:
 

 

 

Eudave, L., Martínez, M., Valencia, M., & Roth D. (2023). Evaluation of spatial learning and wayfinding in a complex maze using immersive virtual reality. A registered report. In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports.

 

Wamsley, E. J., Tucker, M., Payne, J. D., Benavides, J. A., & Stickgold, R. (2010). Dreaming of a learning task is associated with enhanced sleep-dependent memory consolidation. Current Biology, 20, 850–855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.03.027

 

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