Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology 
Overall rating of Registered Reports peer review process
Based on 16 ratings from authors/reviewers
Speed: 4.3 (26)Number of question responses this average is based on
Quality: 4.3 (194)Number of question responses this average is based on
View dashboard of all journals
Add your peer review feedback for this journal (needs login/registration)
By stage
| Stage | Speed | Quality |
|---|---|---|
| Stage 1 | 4.1 (16)Number of question responses this average is based on | 4 (112)Number of question responses this average is based on |
| Stage 2 | 4.7 (10)Number of question responses this average is based on | 4.7 (82)Number of question responses this average is based on |
By role
| Role | Speed | Quality |
|---|---|---|
| Author | 4.3 (26)Number of question responses this average is based on | 4.3 (194)Number of question responses this average is based on |
| Reviewer | No data yet ? | No data yet ? |
By role x Stage
| Role x Stage | Speed | Quality |
|---|---|---|
| Author (Stage 1) | 4.1 (16)Number of question responses this average is based on | 4 (112)Number of question responses this average is based on |
| Author (Stage 2) | 4.7 (10)Number of question responses this average is based on | 4.7 (82)Number of question responses this average is based on |
| Reviewer (Stage 1) | No data yet ? | No data yet ? |
| Reviewer (Stage 2) | No data yet ? | No data yet ? |
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!
| Question | Stage 1 | Stage 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Speed of response to a presubmission enquiry (if applicable) | Not enough data ? | — |
| Speed of response to any other author enquiries (if applicable) | Not enough data ? | Not enough data ? |
| Speed of Stage 1 peer review | 3.7 (10)Number of question responses this average is based on | — |
| Speed of Stage 2 peer review | — | 4.7 (6)Number of question responses this average is based on |
| Speed of the editorial decision (when manuscript was rejected) | No data yet ? | No data yet ? |
| Question | Stage 1 | Stage 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Speed of response by the journal to your enquiries (if any) | No data yet ? | No data yet ? |
| Question | Stage 1 | Stage 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Administrative handling of the manuscript, over and above the review process | 4 (8)Number of question responses this average is based on | 4.2 (6)Number of question responses this average is based on |
| Clarity and accessibility of the journal's RR policy | 4.8 (8)Number of question responses this average is based on | 4.8 (6)Number of question responses this average is based on |
| Clarity and efficiency of the manuscript handling system | 4.3 (6)Number of question responses this average is based on | 4.7 (6)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. | Not enough data ? | Not enough data ? |
| Quality of editorial input, including clarity of editorial guidance | 3.5 (10)Number of question responses this average is based on | 4.4 (5)Number of question responses this average is based on |
| Quality of feedback from the editor in rejection letter | Not enough data ? | No data yet ? |
| Quality of response from the editor to a presubmission enquiry (if applicable) | Not enough data ? | — |
| Quality of Stage 1 peer reviews | 3.7 (10)Number of question responses this average is based on | — |
| Quality of Stage 2 peer reviews | — | 4.4 (5)Number of question responses this average is based on |
| The extent to which the journal adhered to general principles/spirit of RRs | 4.4 (8)Number of question responses this average is based on | 4.8 (6)Number of question responses this average is based on |
| The extent to which the journal adhered to its stated policy on RRs | 4.5 (8)Number of question responses this average is based on | 4.8 (6)Number of question responses this average is based on |
How many rounds of peer review were there at Stage 1?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10+
Prefer not to answer
Don't know/don't recall
Number of peer reviewers at Stage 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10+
Prefer not to answer
Don't know/don't recall
Do you believe the editor read your Stage 1 manuscript?
Yes and in detail
Yes but only superficially
No
Prefer not to answer
Don't know / don't recall
N/A
Has your experience at Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology changed your opinion of RRs overall?
Yes, my opinion is now more positive
Yes, my opinion is now more negative
No, my opinion is unchanged
Prefer not to answer
Don't know / don't recall
N/A
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
No
Prefer not to answer
Don't know / don't recall
N/A
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
Somewhat coerced
Heavily coerced
Prefer not to answer
Don't know / don't recall
N/A
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
About the right amount of power
Too much power
Prefer not to answer
Don't know / don't recall
N/A
Would you submit a Registered Report to Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology again?
Yes
No
Prefer not to answer
Don't know / don't recall
N/A
Have you ever submitted a regular empirical article (other than a Registered Report) to Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology?
Yes
No
Prefer not to answer
Don't know / don't recall
N/A
- Further responses for 'Yes':
- Please compare your experience submitting a Stage 1 Registered Report to Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology with your previous experience(s) at Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology submitting a regular empirical article. If you have previously submitted multiple regular articles to Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, please compare your Registered Report experience with your overall or "average" experience with regular empirical articles at Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology.
- Not enough data ?
How many rounds of peer review were there at Stage 2?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10+
Prefer not to answer
Don't know/don't recall
Number of peer reviewers at Stage 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10+
Prefer not to answer
Don't know/don't recall
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
Only as necessary to assess whether any prespecified outcome-neutral tests / positive controls / data quality checks succeeded
To a major extent involving the main outcomes
To a minor extent involving the main outcomes
Prefer not to answer
Don't know / don't recall
N/A
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
To a minor extent
To a major extent
Prefer not to answer
Don't know / don't recall
N/A
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
To a minor extent
To a major extent
Prefer not to answer
Don't know / don't recall
N/A
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
To a minor extent
To a major extent
Prefer not to answer
Don't know / don't recall
N/A
Do you believe the editor read your Stage 2 manuscript?
Yes and in detail
Yes but only superficially
No
Prefer not to answer
Don't know / don't recall
N/A
Has your experience at Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology changed your opinion of RRs overall?
- No data yet ?
In retrospect, do you believe the editor made the correct decision in accepting your Stage 2 manuscript?
Yes
No
Prefer not to answer
Don't know / don't recall
N/A
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
Somewhat coerced
Heavily coerced
Prefer not to answer
Don't know / don't recall
N/A
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
To a minor extent
To a major extent
Prefer not to answer
Don't know / don't recall
N/A
Would you submit a Registered Report to Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology again?
- No data yet ?
Have you ever submitted a regular empirical article (other than a Registered Report) to Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology?
- No data yet ?
| Question | Stage 1 | Stage 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity and accessibility of the journal's RR policy and expectations of reviewers | No data yet ? | No data yet ? |
| Clarity and efficiency of the manuscript handling system | No data yet ? | No data yet ? |
| Extent to which the authors responded appropriately and constructively to your review(s) through either revision or rebuttal | No data yet ? | No data yet ? |
| Extent to which the editor helped authors resolve conflicting recommendations between reviewers | No data yet ? | No data yet ? |
| Extent to which the editor took into account your review in their editorial decision(s) | No data yet ? | No data yet ? |
| Flexibility of journal or editor to unforeseen circumstances, e.g. in granting extensions of review deadlines, etc. | No data yet ? | No data yet ? |
| Overall quality of editing (to the extent observed) | No data yet ? | No data yet ? |
| Quality of comments provided by any other reviewers (to the extent observed) | No data yet ? | No data yet ? |
How many rounds of peer review were there at Stage 1?
- No data yet ?
Did your experience reviewing this manuscript change your view about potentially submitting a Registered Report to Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology as an author?
- No data yet ?
Do you believe the editor made the correct editorial decision?
- No data yet ?
Do you believe the editor read the manuscript you reviewed?
- No data yet ?
Has your experience at Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology changed your opinion of RRs overall?
- No data yet ?
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?
- No data yet ?
Would you review a Registered Report for Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology again?
- No data yet ?
Do you feel you received sufficient credit or other acknowledgment for your review?
- No data yet ?
Have you ever reviewed a regular empirical article (other than a Registered Report) for Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology?
- No data yet ?
Were there any aspects of your review(s) that you feel the authors (or editor) either ignored or dismissed inappropriately?
- No data yet ?
How many rounds of peer review were there at Stage 2?
- No data yet ?
Did your experience reviewing this manuscript change your view about potentially submitting a Registered Report to Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology as an author?
- No data yet ?
Do you believe the editor made the correct editorial decision?
- No data yet ?
Do you believe the editor read the manuscript you reviewed?
- No data yet ?
Has your experience at Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology changed your opinion of RRs overall?
- No data yet ?
To what extent was the approved Stage 1 manuscript available for comparison with the submitted Stage 2 manuscript?
- No data yet ?
Would you review a Registered Report for Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology again?
- No data yet ?
Do you feel you received sufficient credit or other acknowledgment for your review?
- No data yet ?
Have you ever reviewed a regular empirical article (other than a Registered Report) for Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology?
- No data yet ?
Were there any aspects of your review(s) that you feel the authors (or editor) either ignored or dismissed inappropriately?
- No data yet ?
Across all journals, on how many RR submissions have you been an author/co-author?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10+
Prefer not to answer
Don't know/don't recall
N/A
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?
- Not enough data ?
Are you, or have ever been, a member of staff at Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology?
Yes
No
Prefer not to answer
Don't know / don't recall
N/A
Across all journals, on how many RR submissions have you been an author/co-author?
- No data yet ?
Are you, or have ever been, a member of staff at Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology?
- No data yet ?
Across all journals, how many RR manuscripts have you reviewed?
- No data yet ?
Roughly how long did you spend preparing your review, including time taken to read the manuscript?
- No data yet ?
What was the decision for the manuscript (if you know it)?
- No data yet ?
Are you, or have ever been, a member of staff at Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology?
- No data yet ?
What was your final peer review recommendation for the manuscript?
- No data yet ?
Across all journals, how many RR manuscripts have you reviewed?
- No data yet ?
Roughly how long did you spend preparing your review, including time taken to read the manuscript?
- No data yet ?
What was the decision for the manuscript (if you know it)?
- No data yet ?
Are you, or have ever been, a member of staff at Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology?
- No data yet ?
What was your final peer review recommendation for the manuscript?
- No data yet ?
Prior to your experience at Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, what was your opinion of Registered Reports overall?
Positive
Neutral / no opinion
Negative
Prefer not to answer
Don't know / don't recall
N/A
Prior to your experience at Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, what was your opinion of Registered Reports overall?
Positive
Neutral / no opinion
Negative
Prefer not to answer
Don't know / don't recall
N/A
Prior to your experience at Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, what was your opinion of Registered Reports overall?
- No data yet ?
Prior to your experience at Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, what was your opinion of Registered Reports overall?
- No data yet ?