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.



Representativeness heuristic in intuitive predictions: Replication Registered Report of problems reviewed in Kahneman and Tversky (1973)use asterix (*) to get italics
Hong Ching (Bruce) Chan, Gilad FeldmanPlease 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>[IMPORTANT: Abstract, method, and results were written using a randomized dataset produced by Qualtrics to simulate what these sections will look like after data collection. These will be updated following the data collection. For the purpose of the simulation, we wrote things in past tense, but no pre-registration or data collection took place yet.]</p> <p><br>The representativeness heuristic is the phenomenon that people make predictions not by statistically considering prior evidence, but by the representativeness of the evidence to the target of prediction . In a Registered Report experiment with a US American sample on Prolific (N = 1309), we conducted a conceptual replication of Studies 1 and 2 and a close replication of Studies 3 to 7 from Kahneman and Tversky (1973). [The following is a demo placeholder based on the random simulated and will be updated following data collection.] We found support for the effects of [...] (effects + 95% CI). We found mixed support for the effects of [...] (effects + 95% CI). However, we failed to find support for the effects of [...] (effects + 95% CI). Extending the replication, we [found/failed to find] support for [...]. Overall, we concluded that [...]. Materials, data, and code are available on:;</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://
representativeness, heuristic, predictions, statistical regression
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Social sciences
Omid Ghasemi [] suggested: Robert Ross, , Falk Lieder [] suggested: Joshua Lewis: , Falk Lieder [] suggested: Gilad Feldman: , Falk Lieder [] suggested: Craig Fox: , Falk Lieder [] suggested: Uri Simonsohn: , Falk Lieder [] suggested: Leif Nelson: , Falk Lieder [] suggested: Joe Simmons: 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 []
2023-11-29 15:19:07
Rima-Maria Rahal