Video games may provide the option of spending real money in exchange for probabilistically receiving game-relevant rewards; in effect, encouraging potentially young teenagers to gamble. The industry has subscribed to a set of regulatory principles to cover the use of such "loot boxes", including 1) that they will prevent loot box purchasing by under 18s unless parental consent is given; 2) that they will make it initially clear that the game contains loot boxes; and 3) that they will clearly disclose the probabilities of receiving different rewards.

 

Can the industry effectively self regulate? Xiao (2024) will evaluate this important question by investigating the 100 top selling games on the Apple App Store and estimating the percentage compliance to these three regulatory principles at two time points 6 months apart.

 

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).

 

 
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:
 

 
References
 
1. Xiao, L. (2024). Assessing compliance with UK loot box industry self-regulation on the Apple App Store: a 6-month longitudinal study on the implementation process. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/3knyb

Self-control has shown to be a trait related to beneficial outcomes, including health, academic achievement and relationship quality. It is mostly understood as the ability to surpress immediate urges in order to achieve long-term goals, such as not watching another episode and therefore reaching a healthy amount of sleep. An emerging perspective on self-control shows that there is broader variety in applied strategies, such as removing oneself from a tempting situation, or reminding oneself of one's long-term goal, or reinterpreting the temptation.

 

Katzir et al. (2021) developed a novel instrument, the Self-Control Strategy Scale, that measured the tendency to engage in eight such strategies. In the current study, Roth et al. (2023) propose to translate the scale into German and assess its psychometric properties. Further, they will determine which strategies are related to particular outcomes that may be beneficial; for example, amount of physical activity engaged in, how healthy the diet is, exam performance and life satisfaction.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review by the recommender and at least two expert reviewers, before issuing in-principle acceptance.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/s7qwk
 
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. Katzir, M., Baldwin, M., Werner, K. M., & Hofmann, W. (2021). Moving beyond inhibition: Capturing a broader scope of the self-control construct with the Self-Control Strategy Scale (SCSS). Journal of Personality Assessment, 103, 762-776. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.1883627

 

2. Roth, L. H. O., Jankowski, J., Clay, G., Meindl, D., Vogt, L.-M., Wagner, V., Nordmann, A., Stenzel, L., Freiman, O., Mlynski, C., & Job, V. (2023). Self-Control beyond inhibition. German Translation and Quality Assessment of the Self-Control Strategy Scale (SCSS). In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/s7qwk

Effort moralization is the well known idea that, unrelated to actual performance, people doing more effort are judged better, attributed more morality and seen as better collaborators than people doing less effort. However, the series of studies on this topic mostly used vignettes with a man or a neutral protagonist. The current study by Roth et al. (2025) proposes to tackle the gender problem by testing the difference in attribution morality between a man and a woman protagonist, and two contexts: a “care” and a “work” context, mirroring the stereotypes associated with men and women.

 

The authors included two different and adequate power analyses, various interpretation of the possible effects, and filtering to ensure a high quality of data collection. They also provide a supplementary repository including the qualtrics survey, R script, and simulated data.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on ​detailed responses to the 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/xd87r

 
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:
 

 

 

Roth, L. H. O., Tissot, T. T., Fischer, T. & Masak, S. C. (2025). See me, judge me, pay me: Gendered effort moralization in work and care. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xd87r

The Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Codes (SNARC) effect refers to the fact that smaller numbers receive faster responses with the left hand, and larger numbers with the right hand (Dehaene et al., 1993). This robust finding implies that numbers are associated with space, being represented on a mental number line that progresses from left to right. The SNARC effect is held to depend on relative number magnitude, with the mental number line dynamically adjusting to the numerical range used in a given context. This characterisation is based on significant effects of relative number magnitude, with no significant influence of absolute number magnitude. However, a failure to reject the null hypothesis, within the standard frequentist statistical framework, is not firm evidence for the absence of an effect. In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Roth and colleagues (2023) propose two experiments adapted from Dahaene’s (1993) original methods, with a Bayesian statistical approach to confirm—or rule out—a small effect (d = 0.15) of absolute number magnitude in modulating the classic SNARC effect.

 

The study plan was refined across two 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/ae2c8
 
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

 

Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371

 

Roth, L., Caffier, J., Reips, U.-D., Nuerk, H.-C., & Cipora, K. (2023). One and only SNARC? A Registered Report on the SNARC Effect’s Range Dependency. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ae2c8

Comparative research is how evidence is generated to support or refute broad hypotheses (e.g., Pagel 1999). However, the foundations of such research must be solid if one is to arrive at the correct conclusions. Determining the external validity (the generalizability across situations/individuals/populations) of the building blocks of comparative data sets allows one to place appropriate caveats around the robustness of their conclusions (Steckler & McLeroy 2008).

 

In this registered report, Alley and colleagues plan to tackle the external validity of comparative research that relies on subjects who are either university students or participating in experiments via an online platform (Alley et al. 2023). They will determine whether data from these two types of subjects have measurement equivalence - whether the same trait is measured in the same way across groups. Although they use data from studies involved in the Many Labs replication project to evaluate this question, their results will be of crucial importance to other comparative researchers whose data are generated from these two sources (students and online crowdsourcing). If Alley and colleagues show that these two types of subjects have measurement equivalence, then this indicates that it is more likely that equivalence could hold for other studies relying on these type of subjects as well. If measurement equivalence is not found, then it is a warning to others to evaluate their experimental design to improve validity. In either case, it gives researchers a way to test measurement equivalence for themselves because the code is well annotated and openly available for others to use.

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).

 

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 AND they have taken additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour (e.g. conservative statistical threshold; recruitment of a blinded analyst; robustness testing, multiverse/specification analysis, or other approach) 

 

 

• Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
• F1000Research
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

 

Alley L. J., Axt, J., & Flake J. K. (2023). Convenience Samples and Measurement Equivalence in Replication Research, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/7gtvf

 

Steckler, A. & McLeroy, K. R. (2008). The importance of external validity. American Journal of Public Health 98, 9-10. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.126847

 

Pagel, M. (1999). Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature, 401, 877-884. https://doi.org/10.1038/44766