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.



Revisiting the Psychology of Waste: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Arkes (1996)use asterix (*) to get italics
Zijin Zhu, 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>Arkes (1996) demonstrated a phenomenon of wastefulness avoidance, showing that people may compromise their own self-interest to avoid appearing wasteful. In a Registered Report experiment with a Prolific sample (N = 600), we conducted a replication and extensions of Studies 1, 2, and 3 from Arkes (1996). [The following findings are concluded from simulated random noise and will be updated after data collection.] We [found/failed to find] empirical support for making non-wasteful decisions in the movie package scenario in Study 1 (χ² = X.XX, 95% CI [X.XX, X.XX]), tax program scenario in Study 2 (χ² = X.XX, 95% CI [X.XX, X.XX]), and tent project scenario in Study 3 (χ² = X.XX, 95% CI [X.XX, X.XX]). Extending the replication, we added reasons for making economic decisions, willingness, and perceived wastefulness as extensions and [found/did not find support…]. Extending the replication, we added [...] and [found/did not find support…]. Overall, we conclude that …. Materials, data, and code are available on:;</p> <p>&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://
Bias; Waste; Appearance of wastefulness; Sunk cost effect; Outcome bias
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Social sciences
Raluca Diana Szekely-Copîndean suggested: Renata Heilman ( , Raluca Diana Szekely-Copîndean suggested: Andrei Costea ( 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 []
2024-01-11 06:55:16
Douglas Markant