Open science practices (OSPs, e.g., preregistration, open materials, code and data) aim to enhance the transparency, integrity, and reproducibility of research. Recent work, however, has highlighted various facilitators and barriers perceived by researchers in implementing these, which can either enhance or hinder their success. Little is known about these barriers in the context of Slovakia, and such perceptions are rarely investigated for policy makers and media representatives who are also embedded in the research ecosystem.

 

In their Stage 1 Registered Report, Marcel Martončik and colleagues aim to map the perceptions and experiences of barriers and facilitators of OSPs that are unique to different stakeholder groups in Slovakia. They will conduct both semi-structured interviews and focus groups with a diverse sample of postgraduate students, researchers, policymakers, and media representatives from the field of psychology. Reflexive thematic analysis will identify overarching themes regarding such barriers and facilitators which will provide valuable insights into the support required to make OSPs normative across different stakeholder groups.

 

Four expert reviewers assessed the Stage 1 manuscript across two rounds of in-depth review. Based on the authors' detailed and informed responses to the reviewer’s comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in principle acceptance (IPA).

 

 
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:

 

 

 

Martončik, M., Adamkovič, M., Baník G., Fedáková, D., Issmailová, S., Kačmár, P., Kentoš, M., Majdáková, V., Papcunová, J., & Vargová, L. (2024). Barriers and facilitators to the adoption and promotion of Open Science practices in psychology. The case of Slovakia. In principle acceptance of Version 1.1 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/n86um

Surveys that measure self-report are a workhorse in psychology and the social sciences, providing a vital window into beliefs, attitudes and emotions, both at the level of groups and individuals. The validity of self-report data, however, is an enduring methodological concern, with self-reports vulnerable to a range of response biases, including (among others) the risk of social desirability bias in which, rather than responding honestly, participants answer questions in a way that they believe will be viewed favourably by others. One proposed solution to socially desirable responding is the so-called Bayesian Truth Serum (BTS), which aims to incentivise truthfulness by taking into account the relationship between an individual’s response and their belief about the dominant (or most likely) response given by other people, and then assigning a high truthfulness score to answers that are surprisingly common.

 

Although valid in theory (under a variety of assumptions), questions remain regarding the empirical utility of the BTS. One area of concern is participants’ uncertainty regarding incentives for truth-telling – if participants don’t understand the extent to which telling the truth is in their own interests (or they don’t believe that it matters) then the validity of the BTS is undermined. In the current study, Neville and Williams (2024) aim to test the role of clarifying incentives, particularly for addressing social desirability bias when answering sensitive questions. The authors will administer an experimental survey design including sensitive questions, curated from validated scales, that are relevant to current social attitudes and sensitivities (e.g. “Men are not particularly discriminated against”, “Younger people are usually more productive than older people at their jobs”). Three groups of participants will complete the survey under different incentive conditions: the BTS delivered alone in standard format, the BTS with an interim bonus payment that is awarded to participants (based on their BTS score) half-way through the survey to increase certainty in incentives, and a Regular Incentive control group in which participants receive payment without additional incentives.

 

The authors will then address two questions: whether the BTS overall effectively incentivises honesty (the contrast of BTS alone + BTS with interim payment vs the Regular Incentive group), and whether interim payments, specifically, further boost assumed honesty (the contrast of BTS alone vs BTS with interim payment). Regardless of how the results turn out, the study promises to shed light on the effectiveness of the BTS and its dependence on the visibility of incentives, with implications for survey design in psychology and beyond.

 

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 recommenders judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.​​​

 

 

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:

 

 

Neville, C. M & Williams, M. N. (2024). Does Truth Pay? Investigating the Effectiveness of the Bayesian
Truth Serum with an Interim Payment: A Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/vuh8b

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 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—carried out as part of a long-term measure development project—Dunne et al. (2024) carried out a focus group study with adolescents (n=26) aged 11 to 15 in Northwest England to improve the understanding of constructs related to social media and mental health. The authors applied reflexive thematic analysis to explore adolescents’ social media use experiences and related motivations in the light of mental health.
 
The data and research process led to a construction of five themes, which were connected to mental health in direct and indirect ways. The participants voiced direct experiences of anxiety, self-esteem, and social aspects that reflect a mental health network where social media play diverse roles. Indirect implications of coping and self-control were found to supplement the network. Taken together, the themes and their implications to wellbeing make a valuable contribution to the evolving qualitative understanding young people's social media use in the UK (e.g., Conroy et al. 2023) and serve as a useful basis for future measure development.
 
A particular strength of the work was the engagement of three Young Researchers who co-facilitated the focus groups and were involved in the analysis. The research meets high reflexivity and transparency criteria, and the carefully constructed supplementary materials provide informative details especially for measure developers. Finally, the authors must be commended for sharing these valuable data for reuse.
 
The Stage 2 manuscript was reviewed over two rounds by three unique reviewers. 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 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/w24ec
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence had been accessed and partially observed by the authors prior to IPA, but the authors certify that they have not yet observed the key variables within the data that were 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.
 
2. Conroy, D., Chadwick, D., Fullwood, C., & Lloyd, J. (2023). “You have to know how to live with it without getting to the addiction part”: British young adult experiences of smartphone overreliance and disconnectivity. Psychology of Popular Media, 12, 471-480. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000425

 

3. Dunne, J. H., Black, L., Banwell, E., Nanda, P., Anderton, M, Butters, L.C., Demkowicz, O., Davies, J., Davidson, B., Qualter, P., Humphrey, N., Jay, C., & Panayiotou, M. (2024). Identifying relevant dimensions to the measurement of adolescent social media experience via focus groups with young people [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 9 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/erjvz
 
4. 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

When receiving a favor, we may feel grateful and/or indebted to those who have helped us. What factors determine the extent of gratitude and indebtedness people experience? In a seminal paper, Tsang (2006) found that people reported feeling more gratitude when the helper's intention was perceived to be benevolent rather than selfish. In contrast, indebtedness was not influenced by the perceived intention of the helper.

In the current study, Chan et al. (2025) revisited the effects of helper intention on gratitude and indebtedness, by replicating and extending the original studies (Study 2 & 3) by Tsang (2006). Participants were asked to either recall (replication of Study 2) or read (replication of Study 3) a scenario in which another person helped them with either benevolent or selfish intentions, and rate how much gratitude and indebtedness they would experience in such situations. Replicating the findings by Tsang (2006), Chan et al. (2025) found that gratitude was more strongly influenced by helper intention than indebtedness. Extending these findings, the authors further discovered that helper intention affected perceived expectations for reciprocity and reciprocity inclination. Moreover, perceived reciprocity expectations showed opposite correlations with gratitude and indebtedness. Overall, this successful replication reinforces the distinction between gratitude and indebtedness, providing a solid foundation for future research on their underlying mechanisms and downstream influences.

This Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review by three expert reviewers, and a second round of review by the recommender. After the revisions, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and therefore awarded a positive recommendation.

 

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

1. Tsang, J.-A. (2006). The effects of helper intention on gratitude and indebtedness. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9031-z

2. Chan, C. F., Lim, H. C., Lau, F. Y., Ip, W., Lui, C. F. S., Tam, K. Y. Y., & Feldman, G. (2025). Revisiting the Effects of Helper Intention on Gratitude and Indebtedness: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Tsang (2006)[Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 6 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/gthma

The link between climate change and health is becoming increasingly clear, and problematic (IPCC, 2023). While most agree that climate change is a problem (Vlasceanu et al., 2024) and evidence is starting to emerge that individual's wellbeing can benefit from engaging in proenvironmental behaviour (Prinzing, 2023), there is little robust longitudinal evidence available to make causal claims about the complex and inter-related nature of these types of effects.

 

In their proposed study, Major-Smith et al. (2024) use the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children to explore whether climate concern has a causal impact upon mental health. Strategic use of this pre-existing data allows consideration of both confounding bias and reverse causality to provide more rigorous evidence for this causal effect. The second research question (whether climate action moderates this relationship) is of both personal and professional interest, as someone who struggles with climate anxiety, and plants hundred of trees annually to try and mitigate the dread. Capable of exploring the potential for individual-level climate action to have a double effect - directly help with climate change mitigation and also an individuals' mental health, the proposed research is a rewarding and insightful line of inquiry in a domain desperate for a more rapid and rigorous evidence-base.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round of 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/t6d3k
 
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.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly Journals:

 

 

 

1. IPCC (2023). Accessed here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/resources/spm-headline-statements

 

2. Major-Smith, D., Halstead, I., & Major-Smith, K. (2024) Does concern regarding climate change impact subsequent mental health? A longitudinal analysis using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/t6d3k

 

3. Prinzing, M. (2023). Proenvironmental Behavior Increases Subjective Well-Being: Evidence From an Experience-Sampling Study and a Randomized Experiment. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241251766

 

4. Vlasceanu, M., Doell, K. C., Bak-Coleman, J. B., Todorova, B., Berkebile-Weinberg, M. M., Grayson, S. J., ... & Lutz, A. E. (2024). Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries. Science Advances, 10, eadj5778. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adj5778