Submit a report

Announcements

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.


 

145

Stage 1 Registered Report: Stress regulation via being in nature and social support in adults - a meta-analysis use asterix (*) to get italics
Alessandro Sparacio, Ivan Ropovik, Gabriela M. Jiga-Boy, Hans IJzermanPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
2022
<p>This meta-analysis explored whether being in nature and emotional social support are effective in reducing levels of stress through a Registered Report. We retrieved all the relevant articles that investigated a connection between one of these two strategies and various components of stress (physiological, affective and cognitive) as well as affective consequences of stress. We followed a stringent analysis workflow (including permutation-based selection models and multilevel regression-based models) to provide publication bias-corrected estimates. We found [no evidence for the efficacy of either strategy/evidence for one of the two strategies/evidence for both strategies] with an estimated mean effect size of [xx/xx] and we recommend [recommendation will be provided if necessary].&nbsp;</p>
You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
Stress regulation, self-administered mindfulness, biofeedback, meta-analysis, Registered Report
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Social sciences
No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]
2021-10-28 17:23:18
Chris Chambers