DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/w7n6z/
Version of the report: v2
Three of the four reviewers kindly returned to evaluate your revised manuscript. The reviews are broadly promising, with a few outstanding issues concerning the rationale for the replication, the determination of the SESOI, and whether a pilot study may be required (although I am personally cautious about the use of pilots in establishing effect size estimates). I would like see your response to these points before issuing a final decision.
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/v46fw/
Four reviewers have now completed their evaluations of the Stage 1 manuscript. Overall, I would judge their reviews to be critical but cautiously optimistic -- and highly detailed and constructive. All highlight the value of this replication attempt while also noting a range of areas that would benefit from improvement or clarification in order to meet the Stage 1 criteria.
Across the four sets of evaluations, some of the major issues to address include (in no particular order): strengthening the justification for a replication (see below for my view on this point), considering the pros and cons of a pre-test, including contingent analyses in light of potential failure of statistical assumptions, clarifying conditions under which hypotheses will be deemed unsupported, strengthening the justification of the SESOI, consideration of equivalance testing to provide positive evidence of absence, clarifying the rationale for studying framing effects, confirmation of ethics approval, tackling major methodological deviations from the original study (e.g. such as as the sampling method, and strategies to address it), clarification of study materials to match the original methods, and overall clarity of presentation in key areas.
Considering the the first point above -- strengthening the justification for conducting a replication -- under the PCI RR criteria, replications require no additional justification over and above any other kind of research, and unlike some journals, we do not evaluate Stage 1 RRs on the basis of the perceived importance or value of a research question (but rather, the scientific validity of that question). For this reason, there is no risk of rejection on the grounds that a replication may be unnecessary. That said, I think it would be very much in your interest to address this point constructively in revision because it will make the presentation more compelling for readers, and the reviewer who raised it offers some useful ideas on how to do so.
This list of issues is not exhaustive and you will find that the reviews provide a wide range of additional points. On the basis of their assessments, and my own reading of the manuscript, I am happy to offer the opportunity to submit a major revision.