Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are becoming more popular across sciences, often influencing future research, policies, interventions, and similar. The conclusions of evidence synthesis will depend on the quality of the primary studies (i.e. evidence) included. Thus, the quality and risk of bias in these primary studies must be essential components of evidence synthesis. However, in many scientific fields, including behavioural sciences, this is rarely so.

 

In this Stage 1 manuscript, Batinović et al. (2025) propose to conduct a systematic map of the existing tools to assess methodological quality of risk of bias tools across scientific fields, and map their applicability for primary studies within the broad field of behavioral sciences. The review will provide a comprehensive overview of how existing tools can be applied to the behavioral sciences, and identify gaps for future development of relevant tools in the field. The protocol and its methods were thoroughly developed, and are suitable to reach the research aims.

 

The Stage 1 submission was evaluated by two expert reviewers. After two rounds of revision, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria, and the manuscript was awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question already exists AND is accessible in principle to the authors (e.g. residing in a public database or with a colleague) BUT the authors certify that they have not yet accessed any part of that data/evidence.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

References
 
1. Batinović, L., Pickering, J. S., van den Akker, O. R., Bishop, D., Elsherif, M., Evans, T. R., Gibbs, M., Kalandadze, T., Staaks, J., & Topor, M., Gold in, gold out. Quality appraisal and risk of bias tools to assess non-intervention studies for systematic reviews in the behavioural sciences: A scoping review. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/4gy5b

The popularity of gaming has spurred interest in understanding its impact on wellbeing. Significant research has investigated the impact of gaming from multiple angles. However, prior research has been limited by a lack of behavioural data that could be more reliable in examining the impact of gaming than self-reports of behavior. Similarly, previous research has called for examining the impact of gaming while taking genre differences into consideration.

 

In this programmatic submission (3 x Stage 2 outputs), Ballou et al. (2024) address these gaps by combining digital trace data of gamers across multiple gaming platforms (Nintendo Switch, Xbox (US only), Steam, and mobile systems (iOS and Android)) with psychological surveys measuring the gamers’ basic psychological needs, sleep quality, and subjective wellbeing over a three-month period. Participants will complete 30 daily surveys (US only) and six bi-weekly panel surveys.

 

The combination of behavioral trace data and psychological self-reports offers a rare and comprehensive look at how gaming influences different important aspects of wellbeing. This work is ambitious and addresses scientifically and socially important questions on the impact of gaming.

 

The manuscript underwent one round of in-depth review, where three reviewers with a combination of methodological and domain expertise gave generally positive feedback on the manuscript, providing directions to further strengthen the research. The authors – as judged by the recommender – thoroughly addressed the reviewer comments and have worked to further strengthen the rigour of the manuscript. A further revision round was issued by the recommender to address a minor issue with one hypothesis and other small linguistic edits.

 

Based on detailed responses to the recommender and 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 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. Ballou, N., Hakman, T., Földes, T., Vuorre, M., Magnusson, K., & Przybylski, A. K. (2024). Psychological Wellbeing, Sleep, and Video Gaming: Analyses of Comprehensive Digital Traces. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/mvngt

Drug use is a time-consuming endeavour, particularly for opioids, whereby substantial time is required to seek out, prepare and consume drugs. This prioritization of drug use reduces the time that is available for substance-free alternatives that contribute positively to quality of life, such as socialization, education, employment, physical activity and self-care (Acuff et al., 2019). Given the time commitments, daily supervised treatment of opioid use disorder has poor adherence (Strang et al., 2020). As such, there is an interest in long-acting injectable medications, which can overcome these adherence issues (Saunders et al 2020). However, little is known about how patients on long-acting medications for opioid use disorder adapt to the increased free-time they have, and where this has downstream impacts on their well-being, quality of life and experience of stigma.
 
In the current study, Trøstheim and colleagues plan to conduct an observational investigation of >500 individuals from Norway with opioid use disorder who were receiving pharmacological treatment. Their primary hypothesis is that individuals with opioid use disorder will exhibit distinct time use profiles, which will be examined using latent profile analysis to identify time use patterns based on 17 measured time use variables e.g. ‘How many days in the past week have you done paid work, voluntary work, or community service’. Secondary analyses will test the associations between medication type, time use (based on the latent profile analysis), well-being, stigma and life-satisfaction. Findings from this study will provide a greater understanding of how long-acting medications for opioid use disorder impact free-time and quality of life.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review by two reviewers and the recommender. Following a response and revision, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore 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:
 

 

 
1. Acuff, S. F., Dennhardt, A. A., Correia, C. J., & Murphy, J. G. (2019). Measurement of substance-free reinforcement in addiction: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 70, 79-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.04.003

 

2. Saunders, E. C., Moore, S. K., Walsh, O., Metcalf, S. A., Budney, A. J., Scherer, E., & Marsch, L. A. (2020). Perceptions and preferences for long-acting injectable and implantable medications in comparison to short-acting medications for opioid use disorders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 111, 54-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2020.01.009

 

3. Strang, J., Volkow, N. D., Degenhardt, L., Hickman, M., Johnson, K., Koob, G. F., ... & Walsh, S. L. (2020). Opioid use disorder. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 6, 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-019-0137-5

 

4. Trøstheim, M., Leknes, S., Solli, K. K., Carlyle, M., Ernst, G., & Eikemo, M. (2024). The Importance of Long- and Short-Acting Pharmacological Treatment Options for Time Use and Quality of Life in Individuals with Opioid Use Disorder: An Observational, Cross-Sectional, Survey-Based Study. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/vbpjg

Impulsivity, as a construct, operates by an established history with various models and theories (Leshem & Glicksohn 2007) having accumulated evidence of relevance especially for mental disorders. One of the dominant models, the Impulsive Behavior Model, is conventionally measured in survey studies with UPPS-P scales, a short version of which was recently assessed in a large cross-cultural project (Fournier et al. 2024). In the present study, Fournier and colleagues (2025) aim to further test the revised 20-item scale in English via a three-phase protocol involving evaluations of construct validity, internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and criterion validity. As such, the study contributes to ongoing important development of useful and up-to-date survey scales, which can help researchers avoid measurement issues (Flake & Fried 2020) in various fields where, in this case, impulsivity plays a role.

 

The study was reviewed over three rounds by two reviewers, with respective topic and methods expertise. Based on detailed responses to reviewers’ feedback and the recommender’s comments on the construct, 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/wevc4 (under temporary private embargo)

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. 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. Fournier, L., Bőthe, … & Billieux, J. (2024). Evaluating the factor structure and measurement invariance of the 20-item short version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale across multiple countries, languages, and gender identities. Assessment, 10731911241259560. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241259560

 

3. Fournier, L., Heeren, A., Baggio, S., Clark, L., Verdejo-García, A., Perales J.C., Billieux J. (2025) Development and evaluation of a revised 20-item short version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/wevc4

 

4. Leshem, R. & Glicksohn, J. (2007). The construct of impulsivity revisited. Personality and individual Differences, 43, 681-691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.015

Adverse environments involving threat, uncertainty, deprivation, and stress have been shown to have significant impacts on cognition and development. In this Stage 2 manuscript, Vermeent et al. (2024) adhere to their Stage 1 protocol, investigating the effects of adversity on working memory (WM) using a comprehensive, psychometric modeling approach. The authors aimed to clarify seemingly contradictory findings from previous research: The evidence for working memory capacity impairments in adverse environments versus the possibility that adversity might enhance specific aspects of WM, such as updating ability. Moreover, they examined the effects of distinct types of adversity—neighborhood threat, material deprivation, and unpredictability—on WM performance.

 

The results of the study were, overall, inconclusive: the authors did not find consistent associations between adversity and either WM capacity or WM updating ability. Despite using a large sample and employing latent variable modeling, the study did not reveal significant effects that were either clearly positive or negative for any type of adversity examined. In addition, no evidence for equivalence to zero associations was found. The lack of clear associations suggests that the relationship between adversity and WM is likely more complex than previously thought.

 

As with the Stage 1 evaluation, this manuscript has undergone a rigorous peer review process at Stage 2. The reviewers included specialists in child and youth cognitive development. The constructive feedback from the reviewers ensured that the pre-registered protocol was followed accurately, deviations were reported appropriately, and all concerns raised were addressed satisfactorily. These processes helped to refine Vermeent et al.'s methods and confirm that the planned analysis was followed. Despite the inconclusive results, this study makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the subtle effects of adversity on working memory by providing transparent and rigorous findings that add valuable data to the field. Therefore, I am fully confident that this manuscript is suitable for Stage 2 recommendation.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/dp7wc
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that was used to the answer the research question had been previously accessed by the authors (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certify that they had not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence until after Stage 1 in-principle acceptance.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

 

1. Vermeent, S., Schubert, A.-L., DeJoseph, M. L., Denissen, J. J. A, van Gelder, J.-L. & Frankenhuis, W. E. (2024). Inconclusive evidence for associations between adverse experiences in adulthood and working memory performance [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://github.com/StefanVermeent/liss_wm_profiles_2023/blob/master/manuscript/stage2_tracked.pdf