DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/nrqtz
Version of the report: v1
Thank you for your revised submission. I have now received comments on your Stage 2 manuscript from the one reviewer (Bonni Crawford) with major concerns, particularly regarding the ROI analyses. As you will see, most issues are now resolved, but there are some remaining clarifications required concerning the details and reporting of the new analyses. These issues appear to be readily addressable. I will evaluate your next (and hopefully final) revision/response at desk, and provided you are able to comprehensively address these points, I anticipate being able to award a final Stage 2 recommendation without further in-depth review.
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/nrqtz
I now have two evaluations of your Stage 2 manuscript, kindly provided by the two reviewers who assessed the proposal at Stage 1. As you will see, one of the reviewers is broadly satisfied, asking for minor changes (including some key adjustments to the language). However, the other reviewer (Bonni Crawford) notes a potential error, or at least imprecision, in the ROI localisation method that we need to attend to carefully before proceeding with full acceptance. At Stage 2, is unusual for additional analyses to be required, but in this case I think that the reviewer's suggestion for an additional exploratory analysis is well made, and indeed likely to be essential to ensure that Stage 2 Criterion 2E is met (that the conclusions are based on the evidence). Note that the original analysis should be maintained, and this additional analysis added as transparently post hoc. I look forward to your revision and response, which I will return to the reviewer for further consideration. Note also that changes to the Introduction section should be minimal.
It was interesting to read about the results of the preregistered analyses which I had reviewed some months ago. I have no fundamental concerns regarding these analyses and think that the papers provides some new information that advances our knowledge in understanding the psychobiological foundations of intergroup attitudes/behavior. Here are some minor points of mine:
p.3.: "These were certainly not demented nor sadistic individuals who
participated." Please eliminate "demented" here, because it could be misunderstood as negative labelling of people who suffer from this terrible disease.
general comment on Introduction: A lot of effort is put into explaining why SDO and RWA are either unidimensional or separate constructs. May be this could be formulated in a less "black or white" way, because it is highly likely that both constructs own both shared, but also unique variance - which is also represented by the neuroanatomical findings of this paper
Figure 1: please add confidence intervals to the figure
Table 3: please add information on the direction of the observed relationships (positive vs. negative correlations).
Results & Figures: In my opinion, some of the figures could be moved to the supplemental material, and only the main findings should be presented.