=============================================================================
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: To accommodate reviewer and recommender holiday schedules, we will be closed to ALL submissions from 1st Jul - 1st Sep. During this time, reviewers can submit reviews and recommenders can issue decisions, but no new or revised submissions can be made by authors.
The one exception to this rule is that authors using the scheduled track who submit their initial Stage 1 snapshot prior to 1st Jul can choose a date within the shutdown period to submit their full Stage 1 manuscript.
We recommend that authors submit at least 1-2 weeks prior to commencement of the shutdown period to enable time to make any required revisions prior to in-depth review.
=============================================================================
We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!
Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.
Latest recommendations
| Id | Title * | Authors * | Abstract * | Picture | Thematic fields * | Recommender▼ | Reviewers | Submission date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Appreciation of singing and speaking voices is highly idiosyncraticExploring the enjoyment of voicesRecommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Patrick Savage
Beyond the semantics communicated by speech, human vocalisations can convey a wealth of non-verbal information, including the speaker’s identity, body size, shape, health, age, intentions, emotional state, and personality characteristics. While much has been studied about the neurocognitive basis of voice processing and perception, the richness of vocalisations leaves open fundamental questions about the aesthetics of (and across) song and speech, including which factors determine our preference (liking) for different vocal styles.
In the current study, Bruder et al. (2024) examined the characteristics that determine the enjoyment of voices in different contexts and the extent to which these preferences are shared across different types of vocalisation. Sixty-two participants reported their degree of liking across a validated stimulus set of naturalistic and controlled vocal performances by female singers performing different melody excerpts as a lullaby, as a pop song and as opera aria, as well as reading the corresponding lyrics aloud as if speaking to an adult audience or to an infant. The authors then asked two main questions: first if there is a difference in the amount of shared taste (interrater agreement) across contrasting vocal styles, and second, as suggested by sexual selection accounts of voice attractiveness, whether the same performers are preferred across styles.
Support for the preregistered hypotheses was mixed. Shared taste differed significantly between singing styles, but contrary to the hypothesis that it would be higher for more “natural”/ universal styles (lullabies) than for more “artificial” (operatic) forms of singing (with pop singing in an intermediary position), it was found to be higher for operatic than pop singing. At the same time, the hypothesis of low consistency in preferences for singers across styles was confirmed, contradicting the notion that singing and speaking voices convey the same information about an individual's physical fitness. Overall, the results suggest that enjoyment of singing and speaking is idiosynchratic and prone to substantial individual differences. The authors conclude that a broader approach is needed to studying this question that traverses geographic, linguistic, and cultural contexts.
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewer's 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/7dvme 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: References
1. Bruder, C., Frieler, K. and Larrouy-Maestri, P. (2024). Appreciation of singing and speaking voices is highly idiosyncratic [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/rp5jx?view_only=506d243a6e7a4d3680c81e696ca81025 | Appreciation of singing and speaking voices is highly idiosyncratic | Camila Bruder, Klaus Frieler, Pauline Larrouy-Maestri | <p>Voice preferences are an integral part of interpersonal interactions and shape how people connect with each other. While a large number of studies has investigated the mechanisms behind (speaking) voice attractiveness, very little research was ... | Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2024-06-04 22:06:03 | |||
When children can explain why they believe a claim, they suggest better empirical tests for those claimsThe role of metacognition in how children test surprising claimsRecommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Elizabeth Lapidow and Amy Masnick
As children grow, their cognition develops alongside their metacognition – the awareness and understanding of their own thought processes. One important aspect of cognitive development is learning effective strategies for exploring new situations and testing surprising claims, prompting the question of how improvement in cognition and reasoning is related to metacognitive understanding of these processes. For example, as children develop more targeted and efficient exploration strategies to test a surprising claim (e.g. “of these three rocks, the smallest one is the heaviest”), metacognitive understanding of why they are uncertain or skeptical may be crucial to testing the claim effectively and, in the long run, developing more complex reasoning and logical skills.
In this lab-based study of 174 children, Hermansen et al. (2024) tested the role of metacognition in shaping how children search for information to test surprising claims. Using a series of measures – including an experimental task involving comparative claims (e.g. “this rubber duck sinks much faster than this metal button”) – the authors asked whether older (relative to younger) children express more uncertainty about surprising claims, propose more plausible reasons for their uncertainty, and are more likely to suggest specific empirical tests for a claim. Furthermore, they investigated whether prompting children to reflect on their uncertainty helps them devise an efficient test for the claim, and whether any such benefit of prompting is greater for younger children.
Results provided mixed support for the hypotheses. Contrary to expectations, older children were not more likely than younger children to express uncertainty about surprising claims -- although an exploratory analysis suggested that prior belief may moderate the relationship with age. Consistent with predictions, older children did, however, propose more plausible reasons for their uncertainty and were more likely to suggest specific empirical tests for a claim. Interestingly, prompting children to reflect on their uncertainty did not significantly increase the likelihood that they would generate an efficient test for a claim, although exploratory analysis again suggested that taking to account additional variables (in this case the type of explanation children provide when prompted) could moderate the effect. Taken together, these findings suggest that the development of children’s reasoning about their own beliefs influences their empirical evaluation of those beliefs. Overall, the study highlights the role of metacognition in the development of explicit scientific thinking and suggests a variety of promising avenues for future research.
The Stage 2 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 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/uq6dw
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:
*Note: Despite being listed as a PCI RR-friendly outlet at Stage 1 (in 2022), Infant and Child Development was removed from the above listing at Stage 2 due to the decision by the journal's publisher (Wiley) in 2024 to withdraw its journals from all PCIs, including PCI RR. As part of this withdrawal, Wiley chose to renege on previous commitments issued by Infant and Child Development to PCI RR authors.
References
1. Hermansen T. K., Mathisen, K. F., & Ronfard, S. (2024). When children can explain why they believe a claim, they suggest better empirical tests for those claims [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/6ket7?view_only=d86eb8b5296b4499801e052a6a22291f
| When children can explain why they believe a claim, they suggest better empirical tests for those claims | Tone K. Hermansen, Kamilla F. Mathisen, Samuel Ronfard | <p>Hearing about surprising phenomena triggers exploration, even in young children. This exploration increases and changes with age. It becomes more targeted and efficient with children around 6-years-old clearly exploring with the intent to verif... | Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2024-06-19 09:39:15 | |||
12 May 2025
STAGE 1
Is CPP an ERP marker of evidence accumulation in perceptual decision-making? A multiverse studyEvaluating the role of the centro-parietal positivity in perceptual decision-makingRecommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by April Shi Min Ching, Cassie Short and Caleb Stone
One of the hallmarks of adaptive behaviour is perceptual decision-making: the ability to select and integrate sensory inputs to guide judgments and actions. For decades, evidence accumulation models (EAMs) have been influential in shaping understanding of perceptual decision-making, proposing that evidence for different choices builds over time until a threshold is reached and a decision is triggered. At the same time, reliable biomarkers for evidence accumulation have been observed through single-unit recordings in non-human primates, particularly in parietal, frontal and premotor regions. In humans, the centro-parietal positivity (CPP) – a positive deflection in the event-related potential (ERP) waveform – has emerged as a candidate proxy of perceptual decision-making, exhibiting accumulate-to-bound dynamics, modality-independence, and versatility to sensory inputs. However, much remains to be understood about the generalisability of the CPP across different behavioural contexts, from simple decision-making tasks (e.g. motion discrimination) to more complex judgments (e.g. emotion discrimination).
In the current study, Liu et al. (2025) will test the robustness of the CPP in human decision-making by leveraging secondary analysis of existing datasets. Broadly, they hypothesise that if the CPP is a reliable and generalisable biomarker then it should covary statistically with evidence accumulation, both at the trial level and across tasks that increase in complexity. To test this prediction, the authors will undertake joint modelling of behavioural and ERP data using drift-diffusion modelling, capturing variability within and between trials to estimate the relationship between the CPP and drift rate. In addition, the authors will use multiverse analysis to test the robustness of the observed relationships across a range of different analysis choices, with decision nodes focusing on the choice of CPP metric (build-up rate, amplitude, or peak amplitude) and pooling method in statistical analysis (trial-wise or bin-wise). Overall, the study promises to offer a fresh perspective – both methodologically and theoretically – on how CPP relates to perceptual decision-making.
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/vwmzh
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: References
Liu, Y., Yan, C., & Chuan-Peng, H. (2025). Is CPP an ERP marker of evidence accumulation in perceptual decision-making? A multiverse study. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/vwmzh
| Is CPP an ERP marker of evidence accumulation in perceptual decision-making? A multiverse study | Yikang Liu, Chuyao Yan, Hu Chuan-Peng | <p>Perceptual decision-making is a crucial cognitive process where sensory information is integrated to form judgments and actions. This process is explained by evidence accumulation models (EAM), which posit that decision-makers gather and accumu... | Life Sciences | Chris Chambers | Cassie Short, April Shi Min Ching, Caleb Stone | 2024-09-03 18:27:35 | ||
14 Jan 2025
STAGE 1
Implementing a rapid geographic range expansion - the role of behavior and habitat changesThe role of behavior and habitat availability on species geographic expansionRecommended by Chris Chambers
Note from the PCI RR Managing Board: This Stage 1 recommendation was originally written by Esther Sebastián González for PCI Ecology on 06 Oct 2020 and was transferred to PCI Registered Reports on 14 Jan 2025 to facilitate the submission and evaluation of the resulting Stage 2 submissions. The link to the original recommendation and review history at PCI Ecology may be found at this link (and in PDF format here).
===
Understanding the relative importance of species-specific traits and environmental factors in modulating species distributions is an intriguing question in ecology [1]. Both behavioral flexibility (i.e., the ability to change the behavior in changing circumstances) and habitat availability are known to influence the ability of a species to expand its geographic range [2,3]. However, the role of each factor is context and species dependent and more information is needed to understand how these two factors interact. In this pre-registration, Logan et al. [4] explain how they will use Great-tailed grackles (Quiscalus mexicanus), a species with a flexible behavior and a rapid geographic range expansion, to evaluate the relative role of habitat and behavior as drivers of the species’ expansion [4]. The authors present very clear hypotheses, predicted results and also include alternative predictions. The rationales for all the hypotheses are clearly stated, and the methodology (data and analyses plans) are described with detail. The large amount of information already collected by the authors for the studied species during previous projects warrants the success of this study. It is also remarkable that the authors will make all their data available in a public repository, and that the pre-registration in already stored in GitHub, supporting open access and reproducible science. I agree with the three reviewers of this pre-registration about its value and I think its quality has largely improved during the review process. Thus, I am happy to recommend it and I am looking forward to seeing the results.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: http://corinalogan.com/Preregistrations/gxpopbehaviorhabitat.html
Level of bias control achieved: Level 1. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been accessed and observed by the authors, including key variables, but the authors certify that they have not yet performed any of their preregistered analyses, and in addition they have taken stringent steps to reduce the risk of bias.
List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals: References
[1] Gaston KJ. 2003. The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. Oxford series in Ecology and Evolution. Oxford University Press, New York.
[2] Sol D, Lefebvre L. 2000. Behavioural flexibility predicts invasion success in birds introduced to new zealand. Oikos. 90(3): 599–605. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900317.x
[3] Hanski I, Gilpin M. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: Brief history and conceptual domain. Biological journal of the Linnean Society. 42(1-2): 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1991.tb00548.x
[4] Logan CJ, McCune KB, Chen N, Lukas D. 2020. Implementing a rapid geographic range expansion - the role of behavior and habitat changes (http://corinalogan.com/Preregistrations/gxpopbehaviorhabitat.html) In principle acceptance by PCI Ecology of the version on 16 Dec 2021 https://github.com/corinalogan/grackles/blob/0fb956040a34986902a384a1d8355de65010effd/Files/Preregistrations/gxpopbehaviorhabitat.Rmd
=======
Full review history: [link]
| Implementing a rapid geographic range expansion - the role of behavior and habitat changes | Corina J Logan, Kelsey B McCune, Nancy Chen, Dieter Lukas | <p>It is generally thought that behavioral flexibility, the ability to change behavior when circumstances change, plays an important role in the ability of a species to rapidly expand their geographic range (Chow et al., 2016; Griffin & Guez, ... | | Life Sciences | Chris Chambers | 2025-01-13 12:12:15 | ||
17 Jan 2022
STAGE 1
Identifying Gaming Disorders by Ontology: A Nationally Representative Registered ReportDo different screening instruments for ‘gaming disorder’ measure the same or different construct(s)?Recommended by Charlotte Pennington based on reviews by Daniel Dunleavy, Linda Kaye, David Ellis and 1 anonymous reviewer
There is considerable debate regarding the relationship between excessive gaming and mental health problems. Whilst the diagnostic classification of “gaming disorder” has now been included in the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), the APA decided not to include this diagnosis in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) because the literature “suffers from a lack of a standard definition from which to derive prevalence data” (APA 2013, p. 796). Furthermore, screening instruments that aim to provide diagnostic classifications derive from different ontologies and it is not known whether they identify equivalent prevalence rates of ‘gaming disorder’ or even the same individuals. In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Karhulahti et al. (2022) aim to assess how screening instruments that derive from different ontologies differ in identifying associated problem groups. A nationally representative sample of 8000 Finnish individuals will complete four screening measures to assess the degree of overlap between identified prevalence (how many?), who they identify (what characteristics?) and the health of their identified groups (how healthy?). If these four ontologically diverse instruments operate similarly, this will support the notion of a single “gaming disorder” construct. If, however, the instruments operate differently, this will suggest that efforts should be directed toward assessing the clinical (ir)relevance of multiple constructs. This rigorous study will therefore have important implications for the conceptualisation and measurement of “gaming disorder”, contributing to the debate around the mixed findings of gaming-related health problems. Four expert reviewers with field expertise assessed the Stage 1 manuscript over three rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed and informed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender decided 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/usj5b 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
| Identifying Gaming Disorders by Ontology: A Nationally Representative Registered Report | Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Jukka Vahlo, Marcel Martončik, Matti Munukka, Raine Koskimaa, Mikaela von Bonsdorff | <p style="text-align: justify;">Gaming-related health problems have been researched since the 1980s with numerous different “ontologies” as reference systems, from self-assessed “game addiction” to “pathological gambling” (in the DSM-IV), “interne... | | Medical Sciences, Social sciences | Charlotte Pennington | 2021-08-25 23:08:26 | ||
Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered ReportDifferent ontologies, different constructs? Instruments for gaming-related health problems identify different groups of people and measure different problemsRecommended by Charlotte Pennington based on reviews by Daniel Dunleavy and David Ellis
Screening instruments that aim to provide diagnostic classifications of gaming-related health problems derive from different ontologies and it is not known whether they identify equivalent prevalence rates of ‘gaming disorder’ or even the same individuals. Underpinned by this, Karhulahti et al. (2022) assessed how screening instruments that derive from different ontologies differ in identifying associated problem groups. A nationally representative sample of 8217 Finnish participants completed four screening measures to assess the degree of overlap between identified prevalence (how many?), who they identify (what characteristics?) and the health of their identified groups (how healthy?).
The results indicate that measures based on the ICD-11, DSM-5, DSM-IV, and self-assessment appear to be associated with lower mental health. However, these measures of gaming-related health problems differed significantly in terms of prevalence and/or overlap, suggesting that they identify different groups of people and that different problems or constructs are being measured by different instruments. These findings are important because they contribute to the rapidly growing literature on the ‘fuzziness’ of constructs and measures relating to technology use. The authors recommend that researchers working with these measures should: (a) define their construct of interest; and (b) evaluate the construct validity of their instruments. Being able to answer these questions will enhance research quality and contribute to strengthened meta-analyses. Importantly, this will prevent hype around gaming-related disorders, allowing researchers to communicate clearly and appropriately without risk of confusing related yet different constructs.
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated by two of the reviewers who assessed it at Stage 1. Following revision, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation. To ensure that the manuscript met the requirements of the PCI RR TOP guidelines, prior to this acceptance an email communication was sent to the authors by the recommender to ensure that study data were openly available on a temporary OSF link before the final data archive is full validated by the Finnish Social Sciences Data Archive (FSD). This is noted in the recommended preprint.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/usj5b
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question existed prior to Stage 1 in-principle acceptance.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. Karhulahti V.-M., Vahlo J., Martončik M., Munukka M., Koskimaa R. and Bonsdorff M. (2022). Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered Report. Peer-reviewed and recommended at Stage 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports https://psyarxiv.com/qytrs
| Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered Report | Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Jukka Vahlo, Marcel Martončik, Matti Munukka, Raine Koskimaa, Mikaela von Bonsdorff | <p>Gaming-related health problems have been researched since the 1980s with numerous different “ontologies” as reference systems, from self-assessed “game addiction” to “pathological gambling” (in the DSM-IV), “internet gaming disorder” (in the 3r... | Medical Sciences, Social sciences | Charlotte Pennington | 2022-05-23 16:14:04 | |||
19 Mar 2023
STAGE 1
How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered ReportDoes relaying ‘house edge’ information influence gambler’s perceived chances of winning and their factual understanding of the statistical outcomes?Recommended by Charlotte Pennington based on reviews by Zhang Chen, Graeme Knibb and Luke Clarke
Many products that can impact upon health and wellbeing (e.g. alcohol, food) relay information to consumers about the potential risks. However, such information is commonly provided in suboptimal format for gambling-related products. To encourage safer gambling, research has therefore recommended that information about the average loss from a gambling product (“house edge”) or percentage payout (“return-to-player”) should be communicated, with the former translating to better perceived understanding by gamblers. In this study, Newall et al. (2022) aim to experimentally compare two phrasings of the house edge against a control return-to-player to arrive at the most effective phrasing to aid gambler’s perceived chances of winning and their factual understanding of the statistical outcomes of their bet. Using a hypothetical gambling scenario, a sample of 3,000 UK-based online gamblers will be randomly assigned to receive two alternative phrasings of the house edge or the equivalent return-to-player information. Two outcome measures will be used to judge the effectiveness of the house edge information: gamblers’ perceived changes of winning and rates of accurate responding on a multiple-choice question measuring factual understanding of this information. This study will therefore assess the most effective communication of gambling risk, which can inform public health policies to reduce gambling-related harm.
Following a positive initial appraisal, and after two rounds of in-depth review, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/5npy9
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
1. Newall, P. W. S., James, R. J. E. & Maynard, O. M. (2022). How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered Report, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/5npy9 | How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered Report | Philip Newall, Richard James, Olivia Maynard | <p>The provision of information to consumers is a common input to tackling various public health issues. By comparison to the information given on food and alcohol products, information on gambling products is either not given at all, or shown in ... | Social sciences | Charlotte Pennington | 2022-07-18 16:25:06 | |||
How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered ReportDoes relaying ‘house edge’ information influence gambler’s perceived chances of winning and their factual understanding of the statistical outcomes?Recommended by Charlotte Pennington based on reviews by Zhang Chen and Graeme Knibb
Many products that can impact upon health and wellbeing (e.g., alcohol, food) relay information to consumers about the potential risks. However, such information is commonly provided in suboptimal format for gambling-related products. To encourage safer gambling, research has therefore recommended that information about the average loss from a gambling product (“house edge”) or percentage payout (“return-to-player”) should be communicated, with the former translating to better perceived understanding by gamblers. This Registered Report aimed to experimentally compare two phrasings of the house edge against a control return-to-player to arrive at the most effective phrasing to aid gambler’s perceived chances of winning and their factual understanding of the statistical outcomes of their bet. Using a hypothetical gambling scenario, a sample of 3,333 UK-based online gamblers received one of three phrasings: an original house-edge (“his game keeps 10% of all money bet on average”), an alternative house-edge (“on average this game is programmed to cost you 10% of your stake on each bet”) or return-to-player (“this game has an average percentage payout of 90%”). Two outcome measures were employed to judge the effectiveness of this information: gamblers’ perceived changes of winning and factual understanding. The findings indicate that the two-house edge formats were more effective in communicating gambling-related harms than the return-to-player format, but the original house edge phrasing appeared to be the most optimal as it decreased gambler’s perceived chances of winning and increased their factual understanding compared to return-to-player. These results can therefore inform public health policies to reduce gambling-related harm by presenting the most effective communication of gambling risk.
After two in-depth reviews, 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/5npy9
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:
References
1. Newall, P. W. S., James, R. J. E. & Maynard, O. M. (2023). How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered Report. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pfnzd | How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered Report | Philip Newall, Richard James, Olivia Maynard | <p>The provision of information to consumers is a common input to tackling various public health issues. By comparison to the information given on food and alcohol products, information on gambling products is either not given at all, or shown in ... | Social sciences | Charlotte Pennington | Zhang Chen | 2023-01-09 14:56:36 | ||
02 Jun 2024
STAGE 1
Mapping Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi StudyCapturing Perspectives on Responsible Research Practice: A Delphi StudyRecommended by Charlotte Pennington and Maanasa Raghavan based on reviews by Moin Syed, Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Thomas Evans, Priya Silverstein and Sean Grant
The responsible conduct of research (RCR) is crucial for the health of the research ecosystem: high quality research should lead to more credible findings and increase public trust. However, the dimensions and responsibilities that make up RCR differ across disciplines, who together can learn from one another to ensure rigorous, transparent, and reliable research and foster healthier research culture.
Bridging this gap, in their Stage 1 Registered Report, Field and colleagues (2024) outline their plans for a large-scale Delphi study to evaluate academics' perceived levels of importance of the most crucial elements of RCR and how these align and differ across disciplines. First, they plan to assemble a Delphi panel of RCR experts across multiple disciplines who will evaluate a list of RCR dimensions to suggest any additions. Then, these same panellists will judge each RCR dimension on its importance within their discipline of expertise, with iterative rounds of ratings until stability is reached. In this latter phase, the goal is to probe which items are more broadly appreciated by the sample (i.e., those that are perceived as a universally valuable RCR practice), versus which might be more discipline specific. The findings will present the median importance ratings and categories of response agreement across the entire panel and between different disciplines. Finally, to contextualise these findings, the team will analyse qualitative findings from open-ended text responses with a simple form of thematic analysis. From this, the team will develop a framework, using the identified RCR dimensions, that reflects the needs of the academic community.
By mapping a broader multidisciplinary perspective on RCR, this research will fill the gap between the two extremes that existing conceptualisations of RCR tend to fall under: high-level frameworks designed to be universally applicable across all disciplines (e.g., the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity) and prescriptive guides tailored to the practical instruction of researchers within a specific discipline or field (e.g., RCR training designed for members of a university department). The hope is that this will stimulate a more nuanced understanding and discussion of cross-disciplinary conceptions of RCR.
Five expert reviewers with field expertise assessed the Stage 1 manuscript over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed and informed responses to the reviewer’s comments, the recommenders 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/xmnu5 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
Field, S. M., Thompson, J., van Drimmelen, T., Ferrar, J., Penders, B., de Rijcke, S., & Munafò, M. R. (2024). Mapping Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi Study. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xmnu5
| Mapping Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi Study | Sarahanne M. Field, Jackie Thompson, Tom van Drimmelen, Jennifer Ferrar, Bart Penders, Sarah de Rijcke, and Marcus R. Munafò | <p>Responsible conduct of research (RCR) is generally agreed to be a laudable goal. It promotes high quality research practices, which should lead to more credible findings, and instill confidence in the research community. However, it is as yet u... | Social sciences | Charlotte Pennington | 2023-05-19 15:27:54 | |||
06 Sep 2024
STAGE 1
Barriers and facilitators to the adoption and promotion of Open Science practices in psychology. The case of SlovakiaWhat are the barriers and facilitators to open science practices for researchers, policy makers and media representatives in Slovakia?Recommended by Charlotte Pennington based on reviews by Crystal Steltenpohl, Peter Branney, Andrea E. Abele-Brehm , Emma Norris and 1 anonymous reviewer
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).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/n86um
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
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
| Barriers and facilitators to the adoption and promotion of Open Science practices in psychology. The case of Slovakia | Marcel Martončik, Matúš Adamkovič, Gabriel Baník, Denisa Fedáková, Samar Issmailová, Pavol Kačmár, Michal Kentoš, Viktória Majdáková, Jana Papcunová, Lenka Vargová | <p>Various responsible research practices emphasizing transparency, such as open<br>data, open code, open peer review, and preregistration, have been introduced to<br>enhance the reproducibility and replicability of findings. The ongoing initiativ... | Social sciences | Charlotte Pennington | 2024-04-29 14:39:12 |
