The paper aims to bridge gaps in understanding the relationship between anxiety-related traits and fear processing, with a specific focus on fear acquisition and extinction. Fear and safety processing are known to be linked to anxiety symptoms and traits such as neuroticism and intolerance of uncertainty (Lonsdorf et al., 2017; Morriss et al., 2021). However, the diversity in study focus and measurement methods makes it difficult to integrate findings into clinical practice effectively.

 

To address this issue, Brunsch et al. (2024) propose a systematic literature search and meta-analysis, following PRISMA guidelines, to explore these associations. They plan to use nested random effects models to analyze both psychophysiological and self-report outcome measures. Additionally, they will examine the role of different questionnaires used to assess anxiety-related traits and conduct a content analysis of these tools to evaluate trait overlaps.

 

Current knowledge from the literature indicates that individuals with anxiety disorders exhibit differences in fear acquisition and extinction compared to those without such disorders (Lonsdorf et al., 2017; Morriss et al., 2021). Previous meta-analyses have shown associations between anxiety traits and fear generalization/extinction, but these studies are limited in their scope and focus.

 

The primary aim of the research is to provide a comprehensive summary of the associations between anxiety-related traits and conditioned responding during fear acquisition and extinction across multiple measures. Another goal is to investigate whether different anxiety-related trait questionnaires yield different associations with fear and extinction learning. The authors will also conduct a content analysis to better interpret the results of their meta-analysis by examining the overlap in questionnaire content.

 

A secondary aim of the study is to evaluate how sample characteristics, experimental specifics, and study quality influence the associations between anxiety-related traits and fear acquisition and extinction. By addressing these aims, the study seeks to advance the understanding of fear-related processes in anxiety and inform more targeted prevention and intervention strategies.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript underwent two rounds of thorough review. After considering the detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender determined that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and granted in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been previously accessed by the authors (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certify that they have not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence.

 

 

 

 

1. Bruntsch, M., Abend, R., Chalkia, A., Cooper, S. E., Ehlers, M. R., Johnson, D. C., Klingelhöfer-Jens, M., Morriss, J., Zika, O., & Lonsdorf, T. B. (2024). Associations between anxiety-related traits and fear acquisition and extinction - an item-based content and meta-analysis. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/4mndj

 

2. Lonsdorf, T. B., & Merz, C. J. (2017). More than just noise: Inter-individual differences in fear acquisition, extinction and return of fear in humans - Biological, experiential, temperamental factors, and methodological pitfalls. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 80, 703–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.07.007

 

3. Morriss, J., Wake, S., Elizabeth, C., & van Reekum, C. M. (2021). I Doubt It Is Safe: A Meta-analysis of Self-reported Intolerance of Uncertainty and Threat Extinction Training. Biological Psychiatry Global Open Science, 1, 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsgos.2021.05.011

This recommendation concerns the plan of two studies that are intended to be conducted simultaneously, using the same data collection approach, and to result in two manuscripts that will be submitted for assessment at Stage 2. The Stage 1 manuscript containing these protocols was submitted via the programmatic track.

 

Protocol 1 concerns “Open Scholarship and Feedback in Applied Research: A Qualitative Registered Report”. With this study, the authors aim to explore how applied researchers integrate feedback processes into their work, in relation to transparency and rigor in particular. They will investigate whether their sample are aware of and use feedback mechanisms from the open science movement, such as registered reports, which makes this study nicely metascientific. Through interviews with 50 applied researchers from various fields, the study will examine current feedback practices. The authors intend to use the findings of this first study to inform recommendations on how open science practices can be incorporated into research workflows.

 

Protocol 2 concerns “Understanding the Role of Climate Change in Applied Research: A Qualitative Registered Report”. This study aims to explore how applied researchers address climate change in their work, including the ways their practices are influenced by and respond to climate challenges. It addresses how their approaches may evolve, and they plan to look into the barriers and opportunities climate change presents in practice. Interviews with 50 applied researchers will be analysed to help understand these dynamics. The authors aim to provide recommendations to help applied researchers and their employers adjust their priorities to align with the urgency of climate action. One reviewer did not comment on this second protocol, as the content was outside of their own research area. Although I would have found a reviewer who specializes in this area directly ideally, I found I could still rely on the other two reviewers and my own knowledge to assess this protocol.
 
General comments: As I mentioned in my initial assessment text, these studies were well planned from the get-go and the protocol nicely articulated those plans. The use of different colour highlighting clearly helped the reviewers target different elements of the protocol and give direct feedback on specific parts. It also helped prevent me from getting lost in all the details! Well done, once again, to the authors for making the distinction between the two studies so clear. I was also pleased at how well they balanced the information between the two protocols – this made it easier to see if there were deficiencies in either one somehow. Finally, I loved that reflexivity was considered by the authors. One suggestion by me is that the authors might consider providing a collective positionality statement to go with the trainees’ reflexivity statements (if this is already in the plan and I missed it, please forgive the oversight!) in the final studies, even if as part of an appendix. This is because the open science movement and climate change can both be controversial, and because of the nature of the qualitative approach I would like to understand a little of the stance the group takes towards these issues collectively if the authors think it’s appropriate. I understand that with a big group that might be difficult or impossible, but if it is possible I would like to see it. I would also like to see initials used in the manuscripts to indicate who was responsible for what analysis elements where possible. This allows for accountability and to attribute interpretation to specific individuals involved in the data analysis. Alternatively, individuals can be attributed in a statement at the end of each manuscript to serve the same purpose and be less awkward in the text. If this won't work for some reason, please motivate this decision. 

 

The three reviewers that took the time to go through the reports nevertheless had useful comments, most of which would have contributed to strengthening the plan and minimizing problematic bias later on. The authors took these comments seriously, and thoughtfully (cheerfully even) responded to each. In my estimation, each of the suggestions of the reviewers were satisfied by the authors’ response to reviews letter. Other than my earlier comment about the positionality statement, I have no further comments for the Stage 1 protocol, and I wish the authors all the best with running the studies and writing up Stage 2 for each.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/jdh32
 
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:
 

 

 

Evans, T. R. et al. (2024). Open Scholarship and Feedback in Applied Research/Understanding the Role of Climate Change in Applied Research: A Qualitative Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/jdh32

There are a number of broad assumptions about memory which have penetrated societal understanding and mostly reflect supporting academic evidence e.g., that acute stress can compromise memory performance (Shields et al., 2017) and that practicing recalling critical information can help retain that knowledge (Moriera et al., 2019). The evidence base is less consistent when evaluating whether retrieval practice can protect against the negative effects of acute stress on memory, despite it being highly important for educators as to whether this specific strategy for supporting memorisation can be evidenced as especially effective under stressful conditions. A rigorous review of this mixed evidence base could provide the basis for developments in memory theory and research practice, with potential for direct educational applications.

 

Meta-analyses can play a critical role in furthering our understanding of complex cognitive mechanisms where the evidence base includes a wide range of methods, factors and effect size estimates. Furthermore, there is a lack of rigorous meta-analyses that prioritise open and reproducible processes (Topor et al., 2022) which help role-model good practice. In the current Registered Report, Mihaylova et al. (2024) have proposed a rigorous meta-analysis to systematically review and synthesise the evidence on the effects of retrieval practice for memory performance under acute stress. The work looks to be especially valuable for a) informing future research directions through a structured risk of bias evaluation, and b) generating theoretical developments through a range of confirmatory moderators (including stressor types, memory strategies, time of delay and task type). The findings of the planned analyses are expected to be of immediate interest to educational and occupational domains where memory recall is a priority.

 

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/pkrzb
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been previously accessed by the authors (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certify that they have not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

 

1. Mihaylova, M., Kliegel, M, & Rothen, N. (2024). Does retrieval practice protect memory against stress? A meta-analysis. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/pkrzb

 

2. Moreira, B. F. T., Pinto, T. S. S., Starling, D. S. V., & Jaeger, A. (2019). Retrieval practice in classroom settings: A review of applied research. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 4, p. 5). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00005 

 

3. Shields, G. S., Sazma, M. A., McCullough, A. M., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2017). The effects of acute stress on episodic memory: A meta-analysis and integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 636–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000100 

 

4. Topor, M. K., Pickering, J. S., Mendes, A. B., Bishop, D., Büttner, F., Elsherif, M. M., ... & Westwood, S. (2022). An integrative framework for planning and conducting Non-Intervention, Reproducible, and Open Systematic Reviews (NIRO-SR). Meta-Psychology. https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/8gu5z

Measurement is a vital activity for all research areas, but we so often fail to provide sufficient clarity, rigor and transparency about it, undermining the validity of our studies' conclusions (Flake & Fried, 2020). This concern is of wide societal interest when applied to the domains of ideology and attitudes where measurements of both implicit and explicit attitudes are assumed to reflect the same underlying concept. The extent to which this can be accepted is undermined by mixed evidence demonstrating a lack of consensus on the extent to which relevant psychological factors similarly predict both implicit and explicit attitudes.

 

In the current study, Reid & Inbar (2023) question these assumptions through use of the Project Implicit dataset, exploring the extent to which social dominance orientation (SDO) and right wing authoritarianism (RWA) similarly predict implicit and explicit attitudes. This work was ideally suited for publication through the Registered Reports format because whilst it may have been expected that relationships between SDO/RWA are similar in effect size across measures of both implicit and explicit attitude (because they tap into the same underlying attitude), there was great scope to acknowledge a more complex set of findings which may not be immediately interpretable or coherent.

 

As expected, the results were not completely unambiguous, but the mostly consistent relationships between implicit attitudes and RWA/SDO provided evidence towards both implicit and explict measures capturing the same underlying construct. These results also provide a useful step forward in our discussion of measurement in this domain, acknowledging the complexity of the tradeoff between reliability and specificity.

 

The Stage 2 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 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation. 

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/zv4jw
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 5. All of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question existed before the research commenced but was inaccessible to the authors and thus unobservable prior to IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals:
 

References
 
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. Reid, J. & Inbar, Y. (2024). Implicit Ideologies: Do Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Predict Implicit Attitudes? [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 6 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8udps

Cognitive models ascribe a pivotal role to cognitive biases in the development and maintenance of mental disorders. For instance, attentional biases that prioritize the processing of threat-related stimuli have been suggested to be causally involved in the development and maintenance of anxiety disorders, including generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), which is marked by pathological worry. Therefore, these biases have garnered significant interest as potential diagnostic indicator and as targets for modification.

 

The idea that attention bias modification (ABM) can serve as a therapeutic intervention for GAD and other disorders was fueled by a seminal study by Hazen et al. (2009). In this study, 23 individuals experiencing high levels of worry underwent a computerized attentional retraining of threat stimuli (ARTS) or placebo control training during five training sessions. Relative to control, attention retraining was found to reduce preferential attention to threat, as well as depression and anxiety symptoms. However, as Pond et al. (2024) highlight in their review of the literature, the evidence endorsing the efficacy of ABM in alleviating anxiety disorders is still inconclusive. Moreover, some researchers contend that early positive findings might have been inflated due to demand effects.

 

Based on these considerations, Pond et al. (2024) propose a direct replication of Hazen et al. (2009) by subjecting a high-worry sample to five sessions of ARTS or placebo control. Departing from the frequentist analyses used in the original study, the authors will employ Bayesian analyses that allow more nuanced interpretation of the results, allowing consideration of evidence in support of the null hypothesis. The sampling plan will adhere to a Bayesian stopping rule, whereby the maximal sample size will be set at n=200. Furthermore, the authors extend the original study by addressing potential demand effects. For this purpose, they include a measure of phenomenological control (i.e., the ability to generate experiences align with the expectancies of a given situation) and evaluate its potential moderating impact on the attention bias training.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by three expert reviewers in two rounds of in-depth review. Following responses from the authors, the recommender determined that Stage 1 criteria were met and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/5f7u9
 
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. Hazen, R. A., Vasey, M. W., & Schmidt, N. B. (2009). Attentional retraining: A randomized clinical trial for pathological worry. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 627-633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2008.07.004 

 

2. Pond, N., Meeten, F., Clarke, P., Notebaert, L., & Scott, R. B. (2024). The efficacy of attentional bias modification for anxiety: A registered replication. In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/5f7u9