How can the experiences of those who engage in video games in healthy and unhealthy ways be systematically organised?
Reconstructing Gaming Disorder: A Taxonomy by Registered Report
Recommendation: posted 15 April 2023, validated 15 April 2023
Dienes, Z. (2023) How can the experiences of those who engage in video games in healthy and unhealthy ways be systematically organised?. Peer Community in Registered Reports, . https://rr.peercommunityin.org/articles/rec?id=322
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/ekm8x
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:
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/9nm6x
Version of the report: v2
Author's Reply, 12 Apr 2023
Decision by Zoltan Dienes, posted 03 Apr 2023, validated 03 Apr 2023
The reviewers are largely happy with the paper, with some minor changes for clarification. Concerning the smallest effect size of interest, I prefer to work in raw regression slopes, as they reflect units one should be interested in unaffected by criterion reliability (https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/7/1/28202/118660/Obtaining-Evidence-for-No-Effect), but you may wish to argue,as you have done, that you will not be claiming an effect of interest exists vs does not, in which case, defining what is of interest is moot. Nonetheless, in addressing Ferguson's point, you may wish to alert readers about these issues in forming their own conclusions about what meaningfully exists, given that readers may well jump to conlusions you are are wise enough not to!
Reviewed by Lukas J. Gunschera, 30 Mar 2023
Reviewed by Christopher Ferguson, 12 Mar 2023
Reviewed by Michelle Carras, 16 Mar 2023
Evaluation round #1
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/56ugm
Version of the report: v1
Author's Reply, 24 Feb 2023
Decision by Zoltan Dienes, posted 27 Dec 2022, validated 27 Dec 2022
I now have three thorough and thoughtful expert reviews. All are positive about your research and all ask for important clarifications. I was not sure if you intended quantitiive analyses as part of the Stage 2s, and if so there would of course be a benefit of specifying them in the Stage 1. You should also consider the extra clarity that would be provided by using a Desiggn Table, adapting it where possible for qualitative methods.