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 dissertation: A Registered Report use asterix (*) to get italics
Madeleine Pownall; Charlotte R. Pennington; Emma Norris; Kait Clark Please 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 style="text-align: justify;">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. To date, no research to our knowledge has examined the effectiveness of preregistration on undergraduate students’ learning and perceptions of research practices, despite recent recommendations that preregistration could facilitate engagement and reduce anxiety with the dissertation process. In this study, we aim to empirically test the effectiveness of preregistration as a pedagogic tool in undergraduate dissertations using a quasi-experimental design. A total of 200 UK psychology students will be recruited and classified into two groups: those who preregister their empirical quantitative dissertation (n = 100; experimental group) and those who do not (n = 100; control group). Attitudes towards statistics and QRPs and understanding of Open Science practices will be measured both pre- and post-dissertation. Exploratory measures include participant’s capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B) to engage with preregistration, measured at Time 1 only. In line with/contrary to hypotheses, study preregistration [significantly/did not significantly increased/reduced] positive attitudes towards statistics, acceptance of QRPs, and perceived understanding of Open Science. Exploratory analyses indicate that preregistration was associated with [greater/less/no difference] capability, opportunity and motivation and qualitative responses revealed that preregistration [XXX]. 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 []
2021-07-08 15:27:24
Corina Logan