Registered Reports

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

Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science Link icon

Overall rating of Registered Reports peer review process

Info icon Based on 5 ratings from authors/reviewers

Speed: 4.5 (11)Number of question responses this average is based on

Quality: 4.5 (67)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 4.6 (9)Number of question responses this average is based on 4.5 (53)Number of question responses this average is based on
Stage 2 Not enough data ? 4.9 (14)Number of question responses this average is based on

By role

Role Speed Quality
Author 4.5 (11)Number of question responses this average is based on 4.6 (67)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) 4.6 (9)Number of question responses this average is based on 4.5 (53)Number of question responses this average is based on
Author (Stage 2) Not enough data ? 4.9 (14)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 ?

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)Not enough data ?
Speed of response to any other author enquiries (if applicable)Not enough data ?Not enough data ?
Speed of Stage 1 peer reviewNot enough data ?
Speed of Stage 2 peer reviewNot enough data ?
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)No data yet ?No data yet ?

QuestionStage 1Stage 2
Administrative handling of the manuscript, over and above the review processNot enough data ?No data yet ?
Clarity and accessibility of the journal's RR policyNot enough data ?Not enough data ?
Clarity and efficiency of the manuscript handling systemNot enough data ?No data yet ?
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 guidanceNot enough data ?Not enough data ?
Quality of feedback from the editor in rejection letterNo data yet ?No data yet ?
Quality of response from the editor to a presubmission enquiry (if applicable)Not enough data ?
Quality of Stage 1 peer reviewsNot enough data ?
Quality of Stage 2 peer reviewsNot enough data ?
The extent to which the journal adhered to general principles/spirit of RRsNot enough data ?Not enough data ?
The extent to which the journal adhered to its stated policy on RRsNot enough data ?Not enough data ?

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

  • Not enough data ?

Number of peer reviewers at Stage 1

  • Not enough data ?

Do you believe the editor read your Stage 1 manuscript?

  • Not enough data ?

Has your experience at Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science changed your opinion of RRs overall?

  • Not enough data ?

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?

  • Not enough data ?

In retrospect, do you believe the editor made the correct decision in rejecting your Stage 1 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 1 acceptance? Please consider only invalid or unnecessary changes, not changes you agreed with.

  • Not enough data ?

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?

  • Not enough data ?

Would you submit a Registered Report to Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science again?

  • Not enough data ?

Have you ever submitted a regular empirical article (other than a Registered Report) to Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science?

  • Not enough data ?

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

  • Not enough data ?

Number of peer reviewers at Stage 2

  • Not enough data ?

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 enough data ?

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 enough data ?

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 enough data ?

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 enough data ?

Do you believe the editor read your Stage 2 manuscript?

  • Not enough data ?

Has your experience at Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 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?

  • Not enough data ?

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 enough data ?

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 enough data ?

Would you submit a Registered Report to Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science again?

  • No data yet ?

Have you ever submitted a regular empirical article (other than a Registered Report) to Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science?

  • No data yet ?
QuestionStage 1Stage 2
Clarity and accessibility of the journal's RR policy and expectations of reviewersNo data yet ?No data yet ?
Clarity and efficiency of the manuscript handling systemNo data yet ?No data yet ?
Extent to which the authors responded appropriately and constructively to your review(s) through either revision or rebuttalNo data yet ?No data yet ?
Extent to which the editor helped authors resolve conflicting recommendations between reviewersNo 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 Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 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 Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 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 Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 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 Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science?

  • 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 Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 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 Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 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 Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 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 Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science?

  • 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?

  • Not enough data ?

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)

  • No data yet ?

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 Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science?

  • Not enough data ?

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 Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science?

  • 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 Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science?

  • 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 Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science?

  • No data yet ?

What was your final peer review recommendation for the manuscript?

  • No data yet ?


Prior to your experience at Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, what was your opinion of Registered Reports overall?

  • Not enough data ?

Prior to your experience at Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, what was your opinion of Registered Reports overall?

  • Not enough data ?

Prior to your experience at Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, what was your opinion of Registered Reports overall?

  • No data yet ?

Prior to your experience at Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, what was your opinion of Registered Reports overall?

  • No data yet ?