Understanding the relationship between creativity and depressive traits
Relationship between creativity and depression: the role of reappraisal and rumination
Recommendation: posted 17 October 2022
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:
- Peer Community Journal
- Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research and Practice
- Royal Society Open Science
- Swiss Psychology Open
Chris Chambers (2022) Understanding the relationship between creativity and depressive traits. Peer Community in Registered Reports, . https://rr.peercommunityin.org/articles/rec?id=158
The recommender in charge of the evaluation of the article and the reviewers declared that they have no conflict of interest (as defined in the code of conduct of PCI) with the authors or with the content of the article.
Evaluation round #2
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/74vpt
Version of the report: v2
Author's Reply, 29 Sep 2022
Decision by Chris Chambers, posted 11 Jul 2022, validated 17 Oct 2022
The two reviewers who assessed your initial submission kindly returned to evaluate the revised manuscript. As you will see, the reviewers agree that the manuscript is improved and significant progress has been made toward achieving Stage 1 in-principle acceptance (IPA). One reviewer is fully satisfied while the other asks for additional clarification of the rationale and use of terminology, as well as addressing a concern about measurement validity and the details of the hypothesis-tests.
Please attend to these comments in a thorough revision and response to the reviewer. Given the substantial progress made toward IPA, and the time constraints of your project, I will evaluate this revision at desk. Provided all matters are satsifactorily resolved, IPA should then be forthcoming without requiring further in-depth Stage 1 review.
Reviewed by anonymous reviewer, 25 May 2022
Reviewed by Kate Button, 06 Jul 2022
Evaluation round #1
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/74vpt/
Author's Reply, 20 May 2022
Decision by Chris Chambers, posted 09 Apr 2022
I have now obtained two very detailed and constructive evaluations of your manuscript which are enclosed below for your consideration. As you will see, the reviews are thorough, raising concerns that span the full breadth of the Stage 1 criteria. I will not summarise every point raised, but since major revisions are required, I want to draw your attention to some of the key points.
Both reviewers noted the need for the introduction to include a more logical and comprehensive rationale for the study, which at present lacks sufficient cohesion and depth of scholarship. The reviewers also note the lack of sufficient plans to verify data quality, e.g. through the use of manipulations checks or positive controls (as well as steps to eliminate bots and repeat participation). Additional headline issues include the need for the design to include a measurement of reappraisal ability, deeper consideration of clinical implications, full elaboration of inclusion and exclusion criteria (and consideration of whether the inclusion criteria are appropriately calibrated), measuring state aspects of depression, inconsistencies in the study design plan, and need for a more detailed analysis plan. As noted, the effect size estimatation of your study is also overly optimistic, which means a larger sample size will be required to achieve sufficient power to provide an informative conclusion. For Stage 1 RRs, it is vital that you target the smallest effect size of interest. As noted in the section Evidence Thresholds in the author guidelines: “Since publication bias overinflates published estimates of effect size, power analysis should be based on the lowest available or meaningful estimate of the effect size.” (emphasis added).
In revising, please also confirm that the appropriate ethics approval has been granted.
The level of revisions required here is substantial: increasing the level of scholarship, modifying the study design, increasing the amount of methodological detail, and expanding the sample size. However, from an editorial perspective, the changes are not impossible and the issues you are facing are relatively common, especially for authors approaching RRs for the first same. For a regular manuscript describing a completed study, a set of reviews this critical would lead to outright rejection, but the advantage of the RR process is that it provides the opportunity to make critical design revisions before they become roadblocks. I am therefore happy to invite a comprehensive revision and response, addressing all points, which I will return to the reviewers for re-evaluation.