BRANNEY Peter
- Psychology, University of Bradford, Bradford, United Kingdom
- Social sciences
Recommendations: 0
Reviews: 5
Areas of expertise
Psychology, qualitative methods, experiences of health and healthcare
Reviews: 5
06 Sep 2024
STAGE 1
Barriers and facilitators to the adoption and promotion of Open Science practices in psychology. The case of Slovakia
What are the barriers and facilitators to open science practices for researchers, policy makers and media representatives in Slovakia?
Recommended by Charlotte Pennington based on reviews by Crystal Steltenpohl, Peter Branney, Andrea E. Abele-Brehm , Emma Norris and 1 anonymous reviewerOpen science practices (OSPs, e.g., preregistration, open materials, code and data) aim to enhance the transparency, integrity, and reproducibility of research. Recent work, however, has highlighted various facilitators and barriers perceived by researchers in implementing these, which can either enhance or hinder their success. Little is known about these barriers in the context of Slovakia, and such perceptions are rarely investigated for policy makers and media representatives who are also embedded in the research ecosystem.
In their Stage 1 Registered Report, Marcel Martončik and colleagues aim to map the perceptions and experiences of barriers and facilitators of OSPs that are unique to different stakeholder groups in Slovakia. They will conduct both semi-structured interviews and focus groups with a diverse sample of postgraduate students, researchers, policymakers, and media representatives from the field of psychology. Reflexive thematic analysis will identify overarching themes regarding such barriers and facilitators which will provide valuable insights into the support required to make OSPs normative across different stakeholder groups.
Four expert reviewers assessed the Stage 1 manuscript across two rounds of in-depth review. Based on the authors' detailed and informed responses to the reviewer’s comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/n86um
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly Journals:
- Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
- Collabra: Psychology
- Meta-Psychology
- Peer Community Journal
- Studia Psychologica
- Swiss Psychology Open
References
Martončik, M., Adamkovič, M., Baník G., Fedáková, D., Issmailová, S., Kačmár, P., Kentoš, M., Majdáková, V., Papcunová, J., & Vargová, L. (2024). Barriers and facilitators to the adoption and promotion of Open Science practices in psychology. The case of Slovakia. In principle acceptance of Version 1.1 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/n86um
28 Sep 2023
STAGE 1
Investigating the barriers and enablers to data sharing behaviours: A qualitative Registered Report
Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation in Data Sharing Behaviour
Recommended by Veli-Matti Karhulahti based on reviews by Moin Syed, Peter Branney and Libby BishopIn the past two decades, most academic fields have witnessed an open science revolution that has led to significant increases in open access publishing, reproducibility efforts, and scientific transparency in general (e.g., Spellman et al. 2018). One of the key areas in this ongoing change is data sharing. Although some evidence already points at progress in data sharing practices, many new datasets remain unshared (see Tedersoo et al. 2021).
In the present registered report, Henderson et al. (2023) empirically explore the factors that either hinder or facilitate data sharing in the UK. By means of semi-structured interviews, the team will chart researchers’ experiences of sharing and non-sharing. Thematic template analysis will be applied to organise the data into a hierarchical map of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations in a theoretical domains framework (COM-B-TDF). The research plan itself meets the highest open science standards and reflects on the authors own positions, from which the current qualitative interview data sharing efforts will be made.
The Stage 1 manuscript was reviewed over three rounds by three experts with familiary of the UK cultural context and specializations in open science practices, qualitative research, and data infrastructures. Based on careful revisions and detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/2gm5s (under temporary private embargo)
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
In the present registered report, Henderson et al. (2023) empirically explore the factors that either hinder or facilitate data sharing in the UK. By means of semi-structured interviews, the team will chart researchers’ experiences of sharing and non-sharing. Thematic template analysis will be applied to organise the data into a hierarchical map of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations in a theoretical domains framework (COM-B-TDF). The research plan itself meets the highest open science standards and reflects on the authors own positions, from which the current qualitative interview data sharing efforts will be made.
The Stage 1 manuscript was reviewed over three rounds by three experts with familiary of the UK cultural context and specializations in open science practices, qualitative research, and data infrastructures. Based on careful revisions and detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/2gm5s (under temporary private embargo)
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
- Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
- Collabra: Psychology
- F1000Research
- Meta-Psychology
- Peer Community Journal
- PeerJ
- Studia Psychologica
- Swiss Psychology Open
References
1. Henderson, E., Marcu, A., Atkins, L. & Farran, E.K. (2023). Investigating the barriers and enablers to data sharing behaviours: A qualitative Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/2gm5s
1. Henderson, E., Marcu, A., Atkins, L. & Farran, E.K. (2023). Investigating the barriers and enablers to data sharing behaviours: A qualitative Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/2gm5s
2. Spellman, B. A., Gilbert, E. A. & Corker, K. S. (2018). Open Science. Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119170174.epcn519
3. Tedersoo, L., Küngas, R., Oras, E., Köster, K., Eenmaa, H., Leijen, Ä., ... & Sepp, T. (2021). Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines. Scientific data, 8, 192. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00981-0
Life Thinning and Gaming Disorder: A Longitudinal Qualitative Registered Report
How do intensive gaming experiences evolve over time in clinical and non-clinical contexts?
Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Peter Branney and Michelle CarrasOver the last 5 years the inclusion of “gaming disorder” in the ICD-11 been controversial (Van Rooij et al, 2018), mirroring wider public debate about the effects of gaming on mental health. One of the major gaps in understanding the validity of gaming disorder as an identifiable mental illness is the absence of qualitative studies comparing the lived experience of gamers who seek treatment with esports players who do not report health problems.
Here, Karhulahti et al. (2023) tackle this question in the second of two Stage 2 Registered Reports associated with their previous programmatic Stage 1 submission. Using interpretative phenomenological analysis, the authors undertook in-depth interviews over a 1-year period with treatment-seeking participants (N=5) and esports-playing participants (N=4) who did not experience gaming-related health problems. The authors sought to answer the folllwing primary question: How do the experiences and meanings of playing videogames—shaped by the individuals’ diverse sociocultural contexts—evolve in those with related health problems (as defined by treatment-seeking) and those who play esports games several hours per day while self-reporting no related health problems?
Both groups exhibited intense relationships with gaming that were cyclical over time across various dimensions, with fluctuations occurring in response to changes in health, occupation, and social networks. The observed variation over time was substantial, with individuals attaching and detaching from games involving hundreds or thousands of hours. The authors report treatment-seeking being followed by a search of new gaming and life meanings, while intensive gaming without related problems continued as an integrated part of the self, with resilience adapting and evolving in the face of unexpected life events. Taking into account their findings, the authors propose life thinning and resilience integration processes to help describe and explain how some individuals end up seeking treatment for their gaming, while for others gaming supports them and becomes integrated into their identity.
Following one round of in-depth review and revision, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/a2rwg
Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that was used to answer the research question existed prior to in-principle acceptance(IPA) but the authors certify that they did not access any part of that data/evidence prior to IPA.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. van Rooij AJ, Ferguson CJ, Carras MC, Kardefelt-Winther D, Shi J, Aarseth E, Bean AM, Bergmark KH, Brus A, Coulson M, Deleuze J, Dullur P, Dunkels E, Edman J, Elson M, Etchells PJ, Fiskaali A, Granic I, Jansz J, Karlsen F, Kaye LK, Kirsh B, Lieberoth A, Markey P, Mills KL, Nielsen RKL, Orben A, Poulsen A, Prause N, Prax P, Quandt T, Schimmenti A, Starcevic V, Stutman G, Turner NE, Looy J van, Przybylski AK (2018) A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.19
2. Karhulahti V-M, Siutila M, Vahlo J, Koskimaa R (2023). Life Thinning and Gaming Disorder: A Longitudinal Qualitative Registered Report [Stage 2 Registered Report], acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/hmcqz
Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered Report
The lived experience of gamers: a comparative qualitative investigation of treatment-seekers and esports players
Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Malte Elson and Peter BranneySince 2018, the inclusion of “gaming disorder” in the ICD-11 has been met with a mixture of interest, confusion and controversy (Van Rooij et al, 2018), mirroring broader debates about the effects of gaming on mental health. One of the major gaps in understanding the validity of gaming disorder as an identifiable mental illness is the absence of qualitative studies comparing the lived experience of gamers who seek treatment with esports players who do not report health problems.
Here, Karhulahti et al. (2022) tackle this question in the first of two Stage 2 Registered Reports associated with their previous programmatic Stage 1 submission. Using interpretative phenomenological analysis in gamers and medical experts, they find that treatment-seekers and esports players differ in how gaming is associated with the sense of self, either interfering with the self for treatment-seekers or successfully integrating into the self for esports players. These findings help to identify the key characteristics of problematic and non-problematic gaming and call for more intensive and wide-reaching qualitative research in this area.
Following one round of in-depth review and revision, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/a2rwg
Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that was used to answer the research question existed prior to in-principle acceptance(IPA) but the authors certify that they did not access any part of that data/evidence prior to IPA.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. van Rooij AJ, Ferguson CJ, Carras MC, Kardefelt-Winther D, Shi J, Aarseth E, Bean AM, Bergmark KH, Brus A, Coulson M, Deleuze J, Dullur P, Dunkels E, Edman J, Elson M, Etchells PJ, Fiskaali A, Granic I, Jansz J, Karlsen F, Kaye LK, Kirsh B, Lieberoth A, Markey P, Mills KL, Nielsen RKL, Orben A, Poulsen A, Prause N, Prax P, Quandt T, Schimmenti A, Starcevic V, Stutman G, Turner NE, Looy J van, Przybylski AK (2018) A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.19
2. Karhulahti V-M, Siutila M, Vahlo J, Koskimaa R (2022) Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered Report. Stage 2 Registered Report, acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q53jz
24 Sep 2021
STAGE 1
Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered Report
How does the phenomenology of "gaming disorder" differ from intensive but non-pathological videogame play?
Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Malte Elson, Peter Branney and Michelle CarrasIn this Stage 1 Registered Report, Karhulahti and colleagues (2021) propose a qualitative, interview-based study of videogame play, with the central aim to understand key phenomological differences between gaming behaviour that is associated with vs. without health problems. This question is particularly important given the recent inclusion of "gaming disorder" in the WHO's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD).
In recent years, the validity of "gaming disorder" as an identifiable mental illness has been controversial (e.g. Van Rooij et al, 2018), as has the debate concerning purported harms or benefits of gaming for mental health. This Stage 1 manuscript describes a rigorous qualitative investigation that should provide new insights on this question, and will also include a longitudinal component to examine changes in phenomonology over time, as well as an examination of the extent to which the phenomonology of gaming is reflected in the experiences of medical experts such as doctors, nurses, and therapists who have worked with gaming-related health problems.
More broadly, the manuscript breaks new ground for Registered Reports, being one of the first to focus on qualitative methods, while also making use of the Programmatic submission track in which the approved Stage 1 manuscript is intended to produce two Stage 2 manuscripts focusing on different elements of the project.
Three expert reviewers with a variety of field-specialist and qualitative methodological expertise assessed the Stage 1 manuscript over two rounds of in-depth review. Following revision, the reviewers and recommender agreed that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/a2rwg
Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question already exists AND is accessible in principle to the authors (e.g. residing in a public database or with a colleague), BUT the authors certify that they have not yet accessed any part of that data/evidence.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
- Karhulahti V-M, Siutila M, Vahlo J, Koskimaa R (2021) Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered Report. PsyArXiv preprints, Stage 1 preregistration, in principle acceptance of version 1 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q53jz
- van Rooij AJ, Ferguson CJ, Carras MC, Kardefelt-Winther D, Shi J, Aarseth E, Bean AM, Bergmark KH, Brus A, Coulson M, Deleuze J, Dullur P, Dunkels E, Edman J, Elson M, Etchells PJ, Fiskaali A, Granic I, Jansz J, Karlsen F, Kaye LK, Kirsh B, Lieberoth A, Markey P, Mills KL, Nielsen RKL, Orben A, Poulsen A, Prause N, Prax P, Quandt T, Schimmenti A, Starcevic V, Stutman G, Turner NE, Looy J van, Przybylski AK (2018) A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.19