​Karakashevska and colleagues (2024) aim to examine the extraretinal representation of visual symmetry presented in a virtual reality environment. Previous research had demonstrated that individuals can detect symmetry when the symmetry is represented on a perspective plane, slanted away from the viewer. In electroencephalography (EEG), perceived symmetry is marked by an Event Related Potential (ERP) called a Sustained Posterior Negativity (SPN). When symmetry is presented on a perspective plane in comparison to front-on (frontoparallel), the SPN is reduced, termed the perspective cost. Here, Karakashevska et al., (2024) will determine if presenting symmetry on a perspective plane in a virtual reality (VR) environment will reduce the perspective cost with the addition of 3D depth cues. Specifically, participants will be requested to detect symmetry or luminance of a stimulus presented in a VR environment whilst wearing an EEG. The authors hypothesize that no perspective cost will be identified between symmetry presented on a frontoparallel plane versus symmetry on a perspective plane. Furthermore, the authors will examine the impact of task within the virtual environment on symmetry processing. They hypothesize that a task focused on the regularity of the stimuli will result in a larger amplitude of the SPN than a luminance task. This design enables the authors to pinpoint immersive environments as providing cues critical in overcoming perspective cost.

 

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

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/7pnxu
 
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:

 

 

Karakashevska, E., Batterley, M. & Makin, A. D. J. (2024). They look virtually the same: extraretinal representation of symmetry in virtual reality. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/7pnxu

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

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

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

The debate about consciousness and its neural underpinnings is a hot topic in cognitive neuroscience that has driven innovative original research and theoretical frameworks (Dehaene et al., 2006; Lamme, 2006). Consciousness itself can be defined and studied from different perspectives, such as neuropsychology (Laureys et al., 2004; Monti, 2012), applied philosophy (Blanke & Metzinger, 2009), and experimental cognitive neuroscience (Dehaene & Changeux, 2011). However, after several decades of research via different methods and from different perspectives, basic questions regarding consciousness and its neural underpinnings are still debated (Chalmers, 2010). One of the reasons for this ongoing debate is that consciousness cannot be easily disentangled from confounds, such as involvement of other cognitive processes like memory, language, and so forth (Dehaene & Changeux, 2011).

 

In the current study, Colombari et al. (2025) focus on disentangling neural markers of conscious visual perception from motoric responses. To this end, the study uses a cutting-edge neuroimaging technique, Event-Related Optical Signal (EROS), to measure the neural responses during a Go/No-Go detection task, which is especially designed to gauge visual perception regardless of response production. The study, therefore, is instrumental in addressing the neural foundation of conscious visual perception and is well situated to advance our understanding of consciousness and its neural underpinnings.

 

The Stage 1 submission was evaluated by three expert reviewers. After several rounds of revision, the recommender determined 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:

 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Brain and Neuroscience Advances
• Cortex
• Imaging Neuroscience
• In&Vertebrates
• NeuroImage: Reports
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice *pending editorial consideration of disciplinary fit
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica

 

 

1. Blanke, O., & Metzinger, T. (2009). Full-body illusions and minimal phenomenal selfhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 7-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.10.003

 
2. Chalmers, D. J. (2010). Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness. In The Character of Consciousness (pp. 3-34). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311105.003.0001 

 

3. Colombari, E., Parisi, G., Mele, S., Mazzi, C., & Savazzi, S. (2025). The role of extra-striate areas in conscious motor behavior: a registered report with Fast-Optical Imaging. In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/8ya2t

 

4. Dehaene, S., & Changeux, J. P. (2011). Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing. Neuron, 70, 200-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.03.018 

 

5. Dehaene, S., Changeux, J. P., Naccache, L., Sackur, J., & Sergent, C. (2006). Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: a testable taxonomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 204-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.03.007 

 

6. Lamme, V. A. (2006). Towards a true neural stance on consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 494-501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.09.001 

 

7. Laureys, S., Owen, A. M., & Schiff, N. D. (2004). Brain function in coma, vegetative state, and related disorders. The Lancet Neurology, 3, 537-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(04)00852-x 

 

8. Monti, M. M. (2012). Cognition in the vegetative state. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8, 431-454. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143050