DIENES Zoltan's profile
avatar

DIENES Zoltan

  • School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
  • Social sciences
  • administrator, recommender, manager, developer

Recommendations:  9

Review:  1

Areas of expertise
Professor of Psychology website: http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Zoltan_Dienes/ I joined the first Registered Reports editorial team at Cortex in 2013 (and the team for Exploratory Reports at Cortex when it was set up in 2018); and in 2019 I became an associate editor for Registered Reports for Neuroscience of Consciousness and for Royal Society Open Science. I resigned my positions at Cortex in 2021 because of deciding to have no more dealings, as author, reviewer or editor for journals run by for-profit companies (except society journals because there is some minimal trickle down), despite the fact I felt Cortex had been involved in ground breaking work in scientific publishing. My philosophical and practical approach to Registered Reports is described here: Dienes, Z. (draft). The inner workings of Registered Reports. In Austin Lee Nichols & John E. Edlund (Eds), Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yhp2a This is my first Registered Report seen through to publication: Palfi, B., Parris, B. A., McLatchie, N., Kekecs, Z., & Dienes, Z. (2021). Can unconscious intentions be more effective than conscious intentions? Test of the role of metacognition in hypnotic response. Registered Report. Cortex, 135, 219-239. https://psyarxiv.com/x982m/ I am also interested in how Bayes factors can improve scientific inferences. For an online calculator see: http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Zoltan_Dienes/inference/Bayes.htm and a practical introduction to the issues: Dienes, Z. (2021). How to use and report Bayesian hypothesis tests. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 9–26 https://psyarxiv.com/bua5n/

Recommendations:  9

20 Jan 2023
STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)
toto

No reliable effect of task-irrelevant cross-modal statistical regularities on distractor suppression

Failure to learn cross-modally to suppress distractors

Recommended by based on reviews by Miguel Vadillo and 1 anonymous reviewer
There are two fundamental processes that the brain engages in: statistical learning and selection. Indeed, past work has shown these processes often come together: People can use a task-irrelevant stimulus to predict a target stimulus even in different modalities (crossmodal statistical learning), thereby enhancing the processing of the target stimulus (selection). Further, people can learn where a distractor will be in order to efficiently suppress it (selecting out), using task irrelevant stimuli in the same modality (within-modality statistical learning).
 
In two experiments Jagini and Sunny found that people did not learn to use a task-irrelevant stimulus from a different modality (cross modal statistical learning) to suppress a distractor (selecting out). They also found that people had little awareness of the relation between the predictor task-irrelevant stimulus and the location of the distractor. The results may reflect limits on what can be achieved unconsciously.
 
Following peer review, 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/qjbmg
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question existed prior to Stage 1 in-principle acceptance.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 
 
References
 
1. Jagini, K. K. & Sunny, M. M. (2023). No reliable effect of task-irrelevant cross-modal statistical regularities on distractor suppression. Stage 2 Registered Report, acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/d8wes
17 Jan 2023
STAGE 1
toto

How long does it take to form a habit?: A Multi-Centre Replication

How much practice is needed before daily actions are performed in a way that feels habitual?

Recommended by based on reviews by Benjamin Gardner, Wendy Wood and Adam Takacs
Even small changes in daily life can have a significant impact on one’s health, for example going to the gym at regular times and eating a healthy breakfast. But how long must we do something before it becomes a habit? Lally et al. (2010) tracked the subjective automaticity of a novel, daily (eating or exercise-related) routine. Based on 39 participants, they found a median time of 66 days. This estimate has never been replicated with their exact procedure, so the question remains of how well this holds up. Yet the estimate is useful for knowing how long we have to effortfully make ourselves perform an action until we will do it automatically.
 
In the current study, de Wit et al. (2023) propose a four-centre near-exact replication of Lally et al. (2010), for which they aim to test 800 subjects to provide a precise estimate of the time it takes to form a habit.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over four rounds of review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged 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/bj9r2
 
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
 
1. Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.674
 
2. de Wit, S., Bieleke, M., Fletcher, P. C., Horstmann, A., Schüler, J., Brinkhof, L. P., Gunschera, L. J., AND Murre, J. M. J. (2023). How long does it take to form a habit?: A Multi-Centre Replication, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bj9r2
17 Nov 2022
STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)
toto

Removing barriers to plant-based diets: assisting doctors with vegan patients

Informing doctors of the evidence on plant-based diets

Recommended by based on reviews by Alaa Aldoh, Joshua Tasoff and Bence Palfi
What the best diet is has always been an area of contention. But one thing is clear: Meat is not necessary for health or fitness, and a diet high in plant proteins may well be especially healthy (e.g. Herpich et al., 2022). Further, plant- rather than animal-based diets leave a lower carbon footprint. So what might hold people back from adopting a plant-based diet? One reason is that people may understandably approach their doctor for advice; and the doctor may advise against it, given that many doctors are not well trained in nutrition (Crowley et al., 2019).

Espinosa et al. (2022) conducted a randomised control trial on French general practitioners with 200 doctors given a leaflet and access to an online platform, and 200 controls. The information in the materials concerned the health benefits of plant-based diets, and what nutrients (e.g. B12) may be deficient and what may not be. Attitudes towards and knowledge about plant-based diets was assessed. On a scale of 0-100% expressing whether they would advise for or against (0 = not at all, 100 = absolutely), the intervention shifted attitudes making them more positive about plant based diets by 17 percentage points. However, knowledge of specifically what is worth testing for (e.g. is zinc deficiency more probable or not?) did not change much. The research shows just what can be achieved by a small leaflet (shifting attitudes) and what may require more extensive training (knowledge of relevant medical practice).

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on the responses to the reviewers' comments, 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/fc9gp
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question existed prior to Stage 1 in-principle acceptance.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

References

1. Crowley, J., Ball, L. & Hiddink, G. J. (2019.) Nutrition in medical education: a systematic review. Lancet Planetary Health. 3, e379–e389. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(19)30171-8
 
2. Herpich, C., Müller-Werdan, U., & Norman, K. (2022). Role of plant-based diets in promoting health and longevity. Maturitas, 165, 47-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2022.07.003
 
3. Espinosa, R., Arpinon, T., Maginot, P., Demange, S. & Peureux, F. (2022). Removing barriers to plant-based diets: assisting doctors with vegan patients, acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/kq6eh?view_only=66eab29c7acb4aebbcec4631cbcb9217
17 Nov 2022
STAGE 1
toto

Removing barriers to plant-based diets: assisting doctors with vegan patients

Stage 1 acceptance (IPA)

Recommended by based on reviews by Joshua Tasoff, Bence Palfi and Alaa Aldoh

Thank you for your careful response to the points of myself and the reviewers. I am now happy to award in principle acceptance (IPA). As requested, your submission is being awarded a private Stage 1 acceptance, which will not appear yet on the PCI RR website. Your Stage 1 manuscript has also been registered under the requested 4-year private embargo on the OSF (link below).

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/fc9gp

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:

06 Jun 2022
STAGE 1
toto

Causal evidence for the role of the sensory visual cortex in visual short-term memory maintenance

Can the visual cortex maintain information in the short term?

Recommended by based on reviews by Robert McIntosh, Evie Vergauwe and Vincent van de Ven
According to the sensory recruitment framework, the visual cortex is at least in part responsible for maintaining information about elementary visual features in visual short term memory. Could an early visual area, constantly taking in new information, really be responsible for holding information for up to a second? But conversely, could higher order regions, such as frontal regions, really hold subtle sensory distinctions? It must be done somewhere. Yet the existing evidence is conflicting. Phylactou et al. seek to address this question by applying transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to disrupt early visual areas at intervals up to a second after stimulus presentation to determine the effect on visual short term memory performance. In this way they will causally influence the sensory cortex at relevant times while tightening up on possible confounds in earlier research.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review by three expert reviewers. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged 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/empdt
 
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:
 
 
References
 
1. Phylactou, P., Shimi, A. & Konstantinou, N. (2022). Causal evidence for the role of the sensory visual cortex in visual short-term memory maintenance, in principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/empdt
02 Jun 2022
STAGE 1
toto

Exploring How Members of Illicit Networks Navigate Investigative Interviews

What to say to help one's partners in crime

Recommended by based on reviews by Tom Ormerod and Lorraine Hope
When interviewing members of a criminal network, what determines what information a given interviewee chooses to disclose, as guided by the network's collective planning? What principles could help inform a detective preparing for such interviews? In the current study, Neequaye et al. will recruit groups of people known to each other to assume the role of networks that run an illegal sports betting business, fronting as a chain of tanning salons. Although each network launders money, they have to come up with a strategy to convince investigators they are legit. The groups are motivated to disclose some information when individuals are interviewed, but only enough to appear cooperative. The relation of the amount of different sorts of information disclosed depending on estimated risks and benefits for the group will be tested.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review by two expert reviewers. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged 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/n7ugr
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. Data collection began during the final round of Stage 1 peer review. Since no further revisions were made after this review round, the risk of bias due to prior data observation remains zero, and the manuscript therefore qualifies for Level 6.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 
 
References
 
1. Neequaye, D. A., Granhag, P. A. & Luke, T. J. (2022). Exploring How Members of Illicit Networks Navigate Investigative Interviews, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/n7ugr
26 Apr 2022
STAGE 1
toto

Do task-irrelevant cross-modal statistical regularities induce distractor suppression in visual search?

Learning cross-modally to suppress distractors

Recommended by based on reviews by Miguel Vadillo and 1 anonymous reviewer
There are two fundamental processes that the brain engages in: statistical learning and selection. Indeed, past work has shown these processes often come together: People can use a task-irrelevant stimulus to predict a target stimulus even in different modalities (crossmodal statistical learning), thereby enhancing the processing of the target stimulus (selection). Further, people can learn where a distractor will be in order to efficiently suppress it (selecting out), using task irrelevant stimuli in the same modality (within-modality statistical learning).
 
In the current study, Jagini and Sunny will test whether people can learn where a distractor stimulus is, in order to suppress it (selecting out), using a task-irrelevant stimulus from a different modality (cross modal statistical learning). They will also test whether people can express awareness of the relation between the predictor task-irrelevant stimulus and the location of the distractor on a forced choice test. On some (but not other) theories of consciousness, such a test measures conscious knowledge of the association.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged 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/qjbmg
 
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:
 
References
 
1. Jagini, K. K. & Sunny, M. M. (2022). Do task-irrelevant cross-modal statistical regularities induce distractor suppression in visual search? Stage 1 Registered Report, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/qjbmg
08 Feb 2022
STAGE 1
article picture

Arithmetic deficits in Parkinson's Disease? A registered report

Getting the numbers right in Parkinson's disease?

Recommended by based on reviews by Pia Rotshtein, Ann Dowker, Stephanie Rossit and 1 anonymous reviewer

Everyday life, including for patients taking different types of medicine, involves dealing with numbers. Even though Parkinson's disease may ordinarily be thought of as primarily being a motor disorder, there is evidence that numerical abilities decline as Parkinson's disease progresses. Further, the brain areas involved in arithmetic operations overlap with the areas that degenerate in Parkinson's disease.

In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Loenneker et al. (2022) will test healthy  controls, Parkinson disease patients with normal  cognition, and Parkinson disease patients with mild cognitive impairment on general working memory tasks as well as arithmetic performance on the four basic  operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division). The study aims to test whether or not there is a deficit in each operation, and the relation of any deficits to general working memory capacity.

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over four rounds of review (including two rounds of in-depth specialist review). Based on comprehensive responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged 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/nb5fj

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:

References

Loenneker, H. D., Liepelt-Scarfone, I., Willmes, K., Nuerk, H.-C., & Artemenko, C. (2022). Arithmetic deficits in Parkinson’s Disease? A Registered Report. Stage 1 preregistration, in principle acceptance of version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/nb5fj

25 Jan 2022
STAGE 1
toto

To help or hinder: Do the labels and models used to describe problematic substance use influence public stigma?

Understanding the role of health condition, aetiological labels, and attributional judgements in public stigma toward problematic substance use

Recommended by based on reviews by Nicholas Sinclair-House and Roger Giner-Sorolla

People suffering from substance misuse problems are often stigmatised. Such public stigma may impair such people obtaining help and the quality of help that they receive. For this reason, previous research has investigated the factors that may reduce stigma. Evidence has been found, but not consistently, for the claim that labelling the condition as "chronically relapsing brain disease" vs a "problem" reduces stigma; as does "a health concern" vs " drug use". Another potentially relevant difference that may explain different previous results is describing how effective treatment can be.

In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Pennington et al. (2022) describe how they will investigate if any of these factors affect two different measures of stigma used in previous work, with a study well powered for testing whether the 99% CI lies outside or inside an equivalence region. While the CI being outside the region will straightforwardly justify concluding an effect of interest, a CI within the region will need to be interpreted with due regard to the fact that some effects within the region may be interesting.

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of review (including one round of in-depth specialist review). Based on comprehensive responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged 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/4vscg

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:

References

Pennington, C. R., Monk, R. L., Heim, D., Rose, A. K., Gough, T., Clarke, R., Knibb, G.,  & Jones, A. (2022). To help or hinder: Do the labels and models used to describe problematic substance use influence public stigma? Stage 1 preregistration, in principle acceptance of version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/4vscg

Review:  1

24 Oct 2022
STAGE 1
toto

Does childhood adversity alter opioid drug reward? A conceptual replication in outpatients before surgery

Is childhood adversity associated with a heightened response to opioids?

Recommended by based on reviews by Zoltan Dienes, Yuki Yamada and 1 anonymous reviewer
A convergence of evidence suggests that early life adversity may cause dysfunction in opioid-sensitive reward systems. Childhood adversity is associated with opioid use, potentially by altering reward and motivation networks, and experimental models in animals have found that early life adversity increases and consolidates opioid seeking behaviours. Further, in a recent controlled experiment, Carlyle et al. (2021) found that opioid administration produced stronger positive responses, and weaker negative responses, in adults with a history of childhood abuse and neglect.
 
In the current study, Carlyle et al. seek to test the generalisability of these previous findings in a pre-operative clinical setting. Using partially observed data from an existing cohort study (N=155), the authors will test whether patients with greater experience of childhood trauma in turn exhibit a larger mood boost and express greater subjective pleasure following opioid administration. Although not a randomised experimental design, this study provides the opportunity to examine the relationship between opioid response and history of childhood adversity in a naturalistic setting, and thus has the potential to either support or cast doubt on the theory that adversity elevates risk of opioid addiction by altering sensitivity to subjectively pleasurable effects.
 
Following three rounds of in-depth review, 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/7ymts
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question has been accessed and partially observed by the authors, but the authors certify that they have not yet observed the key variables within the data that will be used to answer the research question AND they have taken additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour. 
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 
References
 
1. Carlyle M., Broomby R., Simpson G., Hannon R., Fawaz L., Mollaahmetoglu O.M., Drain, J., Mostazir, M., & Morgan C. (2021). A randomised, double‐blind study investigating the relationship between early childhood trauma and the rewarding effects of morphine. Addiction Biology, 26(6):e13047.
 
2. Carlyle, M., Kvande, M., Leknes, S., Meier, I., Buen, K., Jensen, E. N., Ernst, G. & Eikemo, M. (2022). Does childhood adversity alter opioid drug reward? A conceptual replication in outpatients before surgery, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/7ymts
avatar

DIENES Zoltan

  • School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
  • Social sciences
  • administrator, recommender, manager, developer

Recommendations:  9

Review:  1

Areas of expertise
Professor of Psychology website: http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Zoltan_Dienes/ I joined the first Registered Reports editorial team at Cortex in 2013 (and the team for Exploratory Reports at Cortex when it was set up in 2018); and in 2019 I became an associate editor for Registered Reports for Neuroscience of Consciousness and for Royal Society Open Science. I resigned my positions at Cortex in 2021 because of deciding to have no more dealings, as author, reviewer or editor for journals run by for-profit companies (except society journals because there is some minimal trickle down), despite the fact I felt Cortex had been involved in ground breaking work in scientific publishing. My philosophical and practical approach to Registered Reports is described here: Dienes, Z. (draft). The inner workings of Registered Reports. In Austin Lee Nichols & John E. Edlund (Eds), Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yhp2a This is my first Registered Report seen through to publication: Palfi, B., Parris, B. A., McLatchie, N., Kekecs, Z., & Dienes, Z. (2021). Can unconscious intentions be more effective than conscious intentions? Test of the role of metacognition in hypnotic response. Registered Report. Cortex, 135, 219-239. https://psyarxiv.com/x982m/ I am also interested in how Bayes factors can improve scientific inferences. For an online calculator see: http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Zoltan_Dienes/inference/Bayes.htm and a practical introduction to the issues: Dienes, Z. (2021). How to use and report Bayesian hypothesis tests. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 9–26 https://psyarxiv.com/bua5n/