Dear Philipp, 

Many thanks for the careful revision. I am happy to now recommend this Stage 2 report, following a final minor revision.

I would just ask you to add a conflict of interest statement before the Reference section in line with the PCI RR guidelines (see text below):

Authors must have no financial conflict of interest relating to the article. The article must contain a "Conflict of interest disclosure" paragraph before the reference section containing this sentence: "The authors of this article declare that they have no financial conflict of interest with the content of this article.";

Once this is done we will proceed immediately with the final Stage 2 recommendation.

All the best, 

Ljerka

The stage 2 report has now been seen by one of the original reviewers as well as Zoltan Dienes, who served as a statistical reviewer during your stage 1 revision process and whose comments I am pasting here. Unfortunately I was not able to contact the other original reviewer who had reviewed your stage 1 report during the first submission stage.

As you will see, there are some changes that are required: 1. a clearer separation between the registered and non-registered analyses, such that the different analyses are clearer for readers to follow, and 2. an adjustment to your conclusions based on the non-significant results you report. 

One additional revision for the authors to make is in Footnote 3:

Comments by Zoltan Dienes:

I didn't read the final Stage 1, so this is based on my reading of the Stage 2. It is clear and concise.  However, the registered and non-registered analyses should be in separate sections to more clearly separate them. Further, their use of the obtained effect size from their previous study as a basis for the power calculation for the current study has led to a non-signfiicant result with an effect size V = .09, with the original significant effect size being V = 0.1. I realize already vast numbers of subjects were needed for the RR as it is; but still the upshot is, the study was not powered to detect all effects of interest (if V = 0.1 was of interest, then so is V = .09). Thus, the abstract and discussion need to conclude more along the lines of "reserve judgment" rather than "we failed to replicate". The abstract and discussion should point out that although the current study was non-significant, it was not powered to detect all effects of interest.

Dear Philipp,

Thank you for submitting your Stage 2 Registered Report. We have now looked carefully at your manuscript and before we proceed with in-depth review, we would like you to address some comments/questions from the recommender Ljerka Ostojic (see attached).

In revising, please include a letter that responds point-by-point to each issues raised. As well as updating the clean Stage 2 preprint, please also include a tracked changes version of the manuscript. Add the tracked changes resulting from this pre-review revision to the previous tracked changes (between Stage 2 and Stage 1) keeping all tracked changes visible. To ensure that this latest round of tracked changes can be clearly distinguished from the previous changes between stages, flag the additional set of tracked changes in the manuscript as being specifically in response to this pre-review decision (e.g. using an additional comment in the margin associated with each update).

Once you have submitted your revised version and response we will commence the Stage 2 review process.

Many thanks,

PCI RR Managing board on behalf of Ljerka Ostojic