Mental accounting under the microscope
Revisiting mental accounting classic paradigms: Replication of Thaler (1999) and an extension examining impulsivity
Recommendation: posted 17 May 2022, validated 17 May 2022
Chambers, C. (2022) Mental accounting under the microscope. Peer Community in Registered Reports, . https://rr.peercommunityin.org/articles/rec?id=164
- Advances in Cognitive Psychology
- Journal of Cognition
- Peer Community Journal
- Royal Society Open Science
- Swiss Psychology Open
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/4ps8m/
Version of the report: v2
Author's Reply, 16 May 2022
Decision by Chris Chambers, posted 16 May 2022
Thank you for your careful and thorough revision and response. One of the reviewers from Stage 1 was available to evaluate the revised manuscript within a short timeframe. As you will see, the reviewer is largely satisified, with just a few remaining clarifications to make in a minor revision. We should then be in a position to offer Stage 1 in-principle acceptance (IPA) without further in-depth review.
For the reviewer who was unable to assess the manuscript within 14 days, I have considered your revisions myself and found them sufficient to proceed. In the event that IPA is awarded, I will invite that reviewer back in due course to evaluate the Stage 2 manuscript.
Reviewed by Barnabas Imre Szaszi, 09 May 2022
Evaluation round #1
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/2g6a8/
Author's Reply, 27 Apr 2022
Decision by Chris Chambers, posted 24 Mar 2022
Two reviewers have now evaluated the Stage 1 manuscript, and at the outset I would like to thank them for providing such generously detailed and constructive assessments. As you will see, the reviewers are broadly positive about the prospects of the replication but also raise a lot of major concerns that will need to be resolved to meet the Stage 1 criteria. The majority of issues focus on the rationale and level of detail surrounding the predictions and analysis plans, methodological concerns surrounding bias control and sample quality, and overall coherence of the presentation.
Reviews of this quality represent the RR format operating at its best because they provide authors with the opportunity to clarify and correct major issues before it is too late. In this case, a significant amount of work lies ahead to achieve in-principle acceptance (and you may decide it is too much); however I would nevertheless like to offer you the opportunity to address the concerns in full.
A revised manuscript will be returned to the reviewers for further in-depth evaluation.