Submit a report


Please note: To accommodate reviewer and recommender holiday schedules, we will be closed to submissions from 1st July — 1st September. During this time, reviewers will be able to submit reviews and recommenders will issue decisions, but no new or revised submissions will be made by authors. The one exception to this rule is that authors using the scheduled track who submit their initial Stage 1 snapshot prior to 1st July can choose a date within the shutdown period to submit their full Stage 1 manuscript.

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.



How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant Informationuse asterix (*) to get italics
David A. Neequaye & Alexandra LorsonPlease 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"
<p>This research explores how intelligence interviewees mentally identify the relevant information at their disposal, which they may or may not disclose. We theorize that interviewees mentally identify applicable information items by estimating the interviewer’s objectives based on how they frame any attempt to solicit information. Interviewees then mentally organize the information they possess into item designations that pragmatically correspond to the perceived interviewer-objective. The more an attempt specifies the interviewer’s objective, the more the interviewee will mentally designate information items that pragmatically correspond with the perceived objective. We propose two studies to examine the theory. The findings would optimize further theorizing about how pragmatic considerations influence intelligence interview dynamics to possibly affect several downstream effects.</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://
disclosure; intelligence gathering; intelligence interviewing; pragmatic inference; relevance theory
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Humanities, 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 []
2022-02-25 22:20:40
Zoltan Dienes