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 can 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.



Evaluating the Pedagogical Effectiveness of Study Preregistration in the Undergraduate Dissertationuse asterix (*) to get italics
Madeleine Pownall, Charlotte R. Pennington, Emma Norris, Marie Juanchich, David Smaile, Sophie Russell, Debbie Gooch, Thomas Rhys Evans, Sofia Persson, Matthew HC Mak, Loukia Tzavella, Rebecca Monk, Thomas Gough, Christopher SY Benwell, Mahmoud Elsherif, Emily Farran, Thomas Gallagher-Mitchell, Luke T. Kendrick, Julia Bahnmueller, Emily Nordmann, Mirela Zaneva, Katie Gilligan-Lee0, Marina Bazhydai, Andrew Jones, Jemma Sedgmond, Iris Holzleitner, James Reynolds, Jo Moss, Daniel Farrelly, Adam J. Parker, and Kait ClarkPlease 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>Research shows that questionable research practices (QRPs) are present in undergraduate final-year dissertation projects. One entry-level Open Science practice proposed to mitigate QRPs is ‘study preregistration’, through which researchers outline their research questions, design, method and analysis plans prior to data collection and/or analysis. In this study, we aimed to empirically test the effectiveness of preregistration as a pedagogic tool in undergraduate dissertations using a quasi-experimental design. A total of 89 UK psychology students were recruited, including students who preregistered their empirical quantitative dissertation (n = 52; experimental group) and those who did not (n = 37; control group). Attitudes towards statistics, acceptance of QRPs, and perceived understanding of Open Science were measured both pre- and post-dissertation. Exploratory measures included capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B) to engage with preregistration, measured at Time 1 only. This study was conducted as a Registered Report; Stage 1 protocol: (date of in-principle acceptance: 21/09/2021). Contrary to hypotheses, study preregistration did not significantly impact attitudes towards statistics or acceptance of QRPs. However, students who preregistered reported greater perceived understanding of Open Science concepts from Time 1 to Time 2, compared with students who did not preregister. Exploratory analyses indicated that students who preregistered reported significantly greater capability, opportunity, and motivation to preregister. Qualitative responses revealed that preregistration was perceived to improve clarity and organisation of the dissertation, prevent QRPs, and promote rigour. Disadvantages and barriers included time, perceived rigidity, and need for training. These results contribute to timely discussions surrounding the utility of embedding Open Science principles into research training.</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://
Preregistration, Open Science, reproducibility, undergraduate training, dissertations; research training
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Life Sciences, 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 []
2023-03-25 11:38:54
Corina Logan