Registered Reports

Community FeedbackImage of stars, showing a four out of five stars rating

PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports) Link icon

Overall rating of Registered Reports peer review process

Info icon Based on 41 ratings from authors/reviewers

Speed: 4.8 (80)Number of question responses this average is based on

Quality: 4.7 (586)Number of question responses this average is based on

Rank icon View dashboard of all journals

Add icon Add your peer review feedback for this journal (needs login/registration)


By stage

Stage Speed Quality
Stage 1 4.8 (65)Number of question responses this average is based on 4.7 (435)Number of question responses this average is based on
Stage 2 4.8 (15)Number of question responses this average is based on 4.9 (151)Number of question responses this average is based on

By role

Role Speed Quality
Author 4.8 (71)Number of question responses this average is based on 4.7 (434)Number of question responses this average is based on
Reviewer 4.8 (9)Number of question responses this average is based on 4.7 (152)Number of question responses this average is based on

By role x Stage

Role x Stage Speed Quality
Author (Stage 1) 4.8 (59)Number of question responses this average is based on 4.7 (326)Number of question responses this average is based on
Author (Stage 2) 4.8 (12)Number of question responses this average is based on 4.9 (108)Number of question responses this average is based on
Reviewer (Stage 1) 4.8 (6)Number of question responses this average is based on 4.6 (109)Number of question responses this average is based on
Reviewer (Stage 2) Not enough data ? 4.8 (43)Number of question responses this average is based on

How are these ratings calculated?

By question

This section shows average ratings/distributions for each question in the feedback survey, by role and stage. It may be that you are particularly interested in one aspect of the Registered Reports peer review process at this journal, beyond the ratings above. N.B. Some of these will be more useful than others, but we want to present everything!

QuestionStage 1Stage 2
Speed of response to a presubmission enquiry (if applicable)5 (15)Number of question responses this average is based on
Speed of response to any other author enquiries (if applicable)5 (20)Number of question responses this average is based on5 (5)Number of question responses this average is based on
Speed of Stage 1 peer review4.7 (24)Number of question responses this average is based on
Speed of Stage 2 peer review4.6 (7)Number of question responses this average is based on
Speed of the editorial decision (when manuscript was rejected)No data yet ?No data yet ?
QuestionStage 1Stage 2
Speed of response by the journal to your enquiries (if any)4.8 (6)Number of question responses this average is based onNot enough data ?

QuestionStage 1Stage 2
Administrative handling of the manuscript, over and above the review process4.9 (21)Number of question responses this average is based on4.9 (7)Number of question responses this average is based on
Clarity and accessibility of the journal's RR policy4.7 (23)Number of question responses this average is based on5 (7)Number of question responses this average is based on
Clarity and efficiency of the manuscript handling system4.4 (24)Number of question responses this average is based on4.7 (7)Number of question responses this average is based on
Flexibility of editor to unforeseen circumstances, e.g. in granting extensions of submission deadline, necessary deviations from the approved protocol etc.5 (17)Number of question responses this average is based on5 (5)Number of question responses this average is based on
Quality of editorial input, including clarity of editorial guidance4.8 (23)Number of question responses this average is based on4.9 (7)Number of question responses this average is based on
Quality of feedback from the editor in rejection letterNot enough data ?No data yet ?
Quality of response from the editor to a presubmission enquiry (if applicable)4.9 (17)Number of question responses this average is based on
Quality of Stage 1 peer reviews4.7 (23)Number of question responses this average is based on
Quality of Stage 2 peer reviews5 (6)Number of question responses this average is based on
The extent to which the journal adhered to general principles/spirit of RRs5 (19)Number of question responses this average is based on5 (7)Number of question responses this average is based on
The extent to which the journal adhered to its stated policy on RRs4.9 (19)Number of question responses this average is based on5 (7)Number of question responses this average is based on

How many rounds of peer review were there at Stage 1?

0
0%
1
4.17%
2
50%
3
16.67%
4
16.67%
5
0%
6
0%
7
4.17%
8
4.17%
9
0%
10+
0%
Prefer not to answer
4.17%
Don't know/don't recall
0%
 
N=24


Number of peer reviewers at Stage 1

0
0%
1
0%
2
50%
3
45.83%
4
4.17%
5
0%
6
0%
7
0%
8
0%
9
0%
10+
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know/don't recall
0%
 
N=24


Do you believe the editor read your Stage 1 manuscript?

Yes and in detail
95.83%
Yes but only superficially
4.17%
No
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=24


Has your experience at PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports) changed your opinion of RRs overall?

Yes, my opinion is now more positive
75%
Yes, my opinion is now more negative
4.17%
No, my opinion is unchanged
16.67%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
4.17%
 
N=24


In retrospect, do you believe the editor made the correct decision in desk-rejecting your Stage 1 manuscript?

  • No data yet ?

In retrospect, do you believe the editor made the correct decision in granting in-principle acceptance to your manuscript?

Yes
100%
No
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=23


In retrospect, do you believe the editor made the correct decision in rejecting your Stage 1 manuscript?

  • Not enough data ?

To what extent did the editor's rejection letter provide useful information about the reasons for the rejection?

  • Not enough data ?

To what extent did you feel coerced into making invalid or unnecessary changes to the manuscript (i.e. hypotheses, methods, analyses) in order to achieve Stage 1 acceptance? Please consider only invalid or unnecessary changes, not changes you agreed with.

Not at all coerced
82.61%
Somewhat coerced
8.7%
Heavily coerced
4.35%
Prefer not to answer
4.35%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=23


To what extent do you believe that the journal (e.g. through editorial action/inaction or policy) bears at least some responsibility for the withdrawal of your submission following Stage 1 acceptance?

  • No data yet ?

To what extent do you feel that the reviewers/editor were granted too much, too little, or the right amount of power to shape your study design at Stage 1?

Too little power
0%
About the right amount of power
82.61%
Too much power
8.7%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
4.35%
N/A
4.35%
 
N=23


Would you submit a Registered Report to PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports) again?

Yes
95.83%
No
4.17%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=24


Have you ever submitted a regular empirical article (other than a Registered Report) to PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports)?

Yes
0%
No
79.17%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
20.83%
 
N=24

  • Further responses for 'Yes':

    • Please compare your experience submitting a Stage 1 Registered Report to PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports) with your previous experience(s) at PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports) submitting a regular empirical article. If you have previously submitted multiple regular articles to PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports), please compare your Registered Report experience with your overall or "average" experience with regular empirical articles at PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports).
      • No data yet ?

How many rounds of peer review were there at Stage 2?

0
14.29%
1
14.29%
2
57.14%
3
0%
4
14.29%
5
0%
6
0%
7
0%
8
0%
9
0%
10+
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know/don't recall
0%
 
N=7


Number of peer reviewers at Stage 2

0
14.29%
1
14.29%
2
71.43%
3
0%
4
0%
5
0%
6
0%
7
0%
8
0%
9
0%
10+
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know/don't recall
0%
 
N=7


At Stage 2, to what extent did the reviewers/editor evaluate the manuscript at least in part based on the obtained results, over and above your interpretation of those results?

Not at all
28.57%
Only as necessary to assess whether any prespecified outcome-neutral tests / positive controls / data quality checks succeeded
57.14%
To a major extent involving the main outcomes
0%
To a minor extent involving the main outcomes
14.29%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


At Stage 2, to what extent did the reviewers/editor reevaluate parts of the Stage 1 manuscript (e.g. study rationale, methods, confirmatory analysis plans) that had already received Stage 1 In-Principle Acceptance?

Not at all
57.14%
To a minor extent
14.29%
To a major extent
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
28.57%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


At Stage 2, to what extent do you feel that the reviewers/editor pressured (or required) you to perform extra analyses that you believe were invalid or unnecessary?

Not at all
100%
To a minor extent
0%
To a major extent
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


At Stage 2, to what extent do you feel the reviewers/editor pressured (or required) you to inappropriately alter parts of the manuscript that were previously approved at Stage 1?

Not at all
100%
To a minor extent
0%
To a major extent
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


Do you believe the editor read your Stage 2 manuscript?

Yes and in detail
100%
Yes but only superficially
0%
No
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


Has your experience at PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports) changed your opinion of RRs overall?

  • Not enough data ?

In retrospect, do you believe the editor made the correct decision in accepting your Stage 2 manuscript?

Yes
100%
No
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


In retrospect, do you believe the editor made the correct decision in desk-rejecting your Stage 2 manuscript?

  • No data yet ?

In retrospect, do you believe the editor made the correct decision in rejecting your Stage 2 manuscript?

  • No data yet ?

To what extent did the editor's rejection letter provide useful information about the reasons for the rejection?

  • No data yet ?

To what extent did you feel coerced into making invalid or unnecessary changes to the manuscript (i.e. hypotheses, methods, analyses) in order to achieve Stage 2 acceptance? Please consider only invalid or unnecessary changes, not changes you agreed with.

Not at all coerced
100%
Somewhat coerced
0%
Heavily coerced
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


To what extent do you feel that the reviewers/editor were overly inflexible about necessary deviations from the approved Stage 1 manuscript at Stage 2?

Not at all
85.71%
To a minor extent
0%
To a major extent
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
14.29%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


Would you submit a Registered Report to PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports) again?

  • Not enough data ?

Have you ever submitted a regular empirical article (other than a Registered Report) to PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports)?

  • Not enough data ?
QuestionStage 1Stage 2
Clarity and accessibility of the journal's RR policy and expectations of reviewers5 (7)Number of question responses this average is based onNot enough data ?
Clarity and efficiency of the manuscript handling system5 (7)Number of question responses this average is based onNot enough data ?
Extent to which the authors responded appropriately and constructively to your review(s) through either revision or rebuttal4.7 (7)Number of question responses this average is based onNot enough data ?
Extent to which the editor helped authors resolve conflicting recommendations between reviewers5 (6)Number of question responses this average is based onNot enough data ?
Extent to which the editor took into account your review in their editorial decision(s)5 (7)Number of question responses this average is based onNot enough data ?
Flexibility of journal or editor to unforeseen circumstances, e.g. in granting extensions of review deadlines, etc.5 (5)Number of question responses this average is based onNot enough data ?
Overall quality of editing (to the extent observed)5 (7)Number of question responses this average is based onNot enough data ?
Quality of comments provided by any other reviewers (to the extent observed)5 (7)Number of question responses this average is based onNot enough data ?

How many rounds of peer review were there at Stage 1?

0
0%
1
16.67%
2
33.33%
3
33.33%
4
16.67%
5
0%
6
0%
7
0%
8
0%
9
0%
10+
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know/don't recall
0%
 
N=6


Did your experience reviewing this manuscript change your view about potentially submitting a Registered Report to PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports) as an author?

Yes: LESS likely to submit a RR to PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports)
0%
Yes: MORE likely submit a RR to PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports)
28.57%
No
71.43%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


Do you believe the editor made the correct editorial decision?

Yes
100%
No
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


Do you believe the editor read the manuscript you reviewed?

Yes and in detail
100%
Yes but only superficially
0%
No
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


Has your experience at PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports) changed your opinion of RRs overall?

Yes, my opinion is now more positive
14.29%
Yes, my opinion is now more negative
0%
No, my opinion is unchanged
85.71%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


To what extent do you feel that you were granted too much, too little, or the right amount of power to shape the authors' proposed study design at Stage 1?

Too little power
0%
About the right amount of power
100%
Too much power
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


Would you review a Registered Report for PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports) again?

Yes
100%
No
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


Do you feel you received sufficient credit or other acknowledgment for your review?

Yes
100%
No
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=7

  • Further responses for 'Yes':
I did not receive any credit or acknowledgement and I'm ok with that
0%
I received some form of credit or acknowledgement and it was sufficient
100%
I received some form of credit or acknowledgement and it was insufficient
0%
I received some form of credit or acknowledgement but I believe it was unnecessary or unwarranted
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
 
N=7

  • Further responses for 'No':
    • No data yet ?

Have you ever reviewed a regular empirical article (other than a Registered Report) for PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports)?

Yes
14.29%
No
71.43%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
14.29%
 
N=7

  • Further responses for 'Yes':

    • Please compare your experience reviewing a Stage 1 Registered Report at PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports) with your previous experience(s) at PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports) reviewing a regular empirical article. If you have previously reviewed multiple regular articles for PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports), please compare your Registered Report experience with your overall or "average" experience reviewing regular empirical articles at PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports).
      • Not enough data ?

Were there any aspects of your review(s) that you feel the authors (or editor) either ignored or dismissed inappropriately?

Yes and on major issues
0%
Yes but only on minor issues
14.29%
No
71.43%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
14.29%
N/A
0%
 
N=7

  • Further responses for 'Yes and on major issues':
      • No data yet ?


  • Further responses for 'Yes but only on minor issues':
      • Not enough data ?



How many rounds of peer review were there at Stage 2?

  • Not enough data ?

Did your experience reviewing this manuscript change your view about potentially submitting a Registered Report to PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports) as an author?

  • Not enough data ?

Do you believe the editor made the correct editorial decision?

  • Not enough data ?

Do you believe the editor read the manuscript you reviewed?

  • Not enough data ?

Has your experience at PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports) changed your opinion of RRs overall?

  • Not enough data ?

To what extent was the approved Stage 1 manuscript available for comparison with the submitted Stage 2 manuscript?

  • Not enough data ?

Would you review a Registered Report for PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports) again?

  • Not enough data ?

Do you feel you received sufficient credit or other acknowledgment for your review?

  • Not enough data ?

Have you ever reviewed a regular empirical article (other than a Registered Report) for PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports)?

  • Not enough data ?

Were there any aspects of your review(s) that you feel the authors (or editor) either ignored or dismissed inappropriately?

  • Not enough data ?


Across all journals, on how many RR submissions have you been an author/co-author?

1
50%
2
12.5%
3
0%
4
8.33%
5
8.33%
6
0%
7
0%
8
0%
9
0%
10+
12.5%
Prefer not to answer
4.17%
Don't know/don't recall
0%
N/A
4.17%
 
N=24


To what extent do you feel you could have feasibly revised the manuscript to satisfy the concerns raised? (Stage 1 - Manuscript rejected after one or more rounds of specialist peer review)

  • Not enough data ?

What was the primary reason for you withdrawing your Stage 1 manuscript before IPA was given?

  • No data yet ?

Are you, or have ever been, a member of staff at PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports)?

Yes
8.33%
No
91.67%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=24


Across all journals, on how many RR submissions have you been an author/co-author?

  • Not enough data ?

Are you, or have ever been, a member of staff at PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports)?

  • Not enough data ?

Across all journals, how many RR manuscripts have you reviewed?

1
28.57%
2
14.29%
3
0%
4
14.29%
5
0%
6
0%
7
0%
8
0%
9
0%
10+
42.86%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know/don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


Roughly how long did you spend preparing your review, including time taken to read the manuscript?

Less than an hour
0%
About an hour
0%
Several hours
71.43%
About a day
0%
Several days
28.57%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


What was the decision for the manuscript (if you know it)?

Granted in-principle acceptance (IPA)
71.43%
Revise
0%
Reject
14.29%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
14.29%
 
N=7


Are you, or have ever been, a member of staff at PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports)?

Yes
71.43%
No
28.57%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


What was your final peer review recommendation for the manuscript?

Grant in-principle acceptance (IPA)
71.43%
Revise
14.29%
Reject
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
14.29%
 
N=7


Across all journals, how many RR manuscripts have you reviewed?

  • Not enough data ?

Roughly how long did you spend preparing your review, including time taken to read the manuscript?

  • Not enough data ?

What was the decision for the manuscript (if you know it)?

  • Not enough data ?

Are you, or have ever been, a member of staff at PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports)?

  • Not enough data ?

What was your final peer review recommendation for the manuscript?

  • Not enough data ?


Prior to your experience at PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports), what was your opinion of Registered Reports overall?

Positive
75%
Neutral / no opinion
20.83%
Negative
4.17%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=24


Prior to your experience at PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports), what was your opinion of Registered Reports overall?

Positive
57.14%
Neutral / no opinion
28.57%
Negative
14.29%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


Prior to your experience at PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports), what was your opinion of Registered Reports overall?

Positive
100%
Neutral / no opinion
0%
Negative
0%
Prefer not to answer
0%
Don't know / don't recall
0%
N/A
0%
 
N=7


Prior to your experience at PCI RR (Peer Community In Registered Reports), what was your opinion of Registered Reports overall?

  • Not enough data ?