Skip to main content Accessibility help
Submission guidelines for pre-acceptance of registered reports
Criteria for Registered Reports

A registered report is a proposal for future research. At JEPS, an experiment would need to be the centerpiece of the research design. A registered report (RR) should consist of the following elements:

    1. Introduction that summarizes the research question.
    2. A brief literature review that summarizes previous research, making clear what gap(s) in the literature the proposed research will address.
    3. Clearly stated hypotheses as well as the theoretical basis for them.
    4. A detailed description of the proposed experimental design with all materials (e.g., scripts, question wording, etc.) placed in an appendix.
    5. A detailed explanation of how aspects of the experiment (design and measurement) relate to the hypotheses under investigation. If the plan proposes moderator(s), the author(s) should thoroughly explain how the moderator(s) will be measured. Statistical power should be discussed here.
    6. Detailed explanation of the methods that will be used to analyze the experimental data, including how the author(s) will deal with missing values, take into account elements of complicated experimental designs as well as a thorough explanation of manipulation checks (if there are any) and how author(s) plan to handle observations that do not “pass.” Author(s) should also explicitly state covariates and how they plan to use them in the analyses.
    7. A discussion of pilot data if any have been collected.
    8. Deposition in a registry before submission (e.g., Open Science, EGAP, etc.).

Submissions that do not meet these criteria will be desk rejected.

We encourage authors to write the registered report as they would the manuscript and include placeholders for tables and anticipated figures. In lieu of (or in addition to) pilot data, it could be helpful for reviewers to see simulated analyses.

Authors will be asked to agree at the outset of the review process that if their RR is conditionally accepted, they will continue on to Stage 2 of the review process (see below) and ultimately publish their paper with JEPS if it clears the second stage.

RRs that are conditionally accepted will be given sufficient reasonable time to conduct the proposed experimental design, but likely no more than one year after conditional acceptance.

If unforeseen circumstances cause the authors to make major deviations to the design and protocol from the pre-accepted RR, authors are encouraged to reach out to the editorial office for guidance. AEs have the option of consulting with reviewers in the first stage.

Framework for the Review Process

RRs will be subject to a two-stage review process.

Stage 1

Reviewers would be asked to review the RR along five dimensions:

    1. Importance of the research question
    2. Soundness of proposed hypotheses
    3. Soundness and feasibility of proposed design (including statistical power)
    4. Whether proposed experiment offers an adequate and appropriate test of hypotheses
    5. Whether proposed methods are appropriate and sufficiently detailed

Like all manuscripts submitted to JEPS, AEs have the option of desk rejecting the PRR if s/he believes that it is fundamentally lacking on any of the five dimensions. RRs sent out for review will be handled in a similar way. The AE may conditionally accept the RR, ask for revisions, or reject it. AEs are encouraged to set a high bar for R&Rs. The proposed revisions should be doable and straightforward as well as promise to be reasonably successful at addressing reviewers’ concerns if taken seriously by the authors.

RRs that are conditionally accepted are subject to a second stage review where, to the extent possible, the original reviewers are re-contacted and asked to assess the manuscript along four dimensions listed below.

Stage 2

    1. Research question and rationale for hypotheses did not change from RR.
    2. Experimental procedures detailed in the RR were followed closely and any departures are noted and justified.
    3. Unregistered posthoc analyses are clearly labeled, justified, methodologically sound, and informative.
    4. Conclusions are justified by the data. (Considerations of data quality fall here).

Reviewers are asked not to consider the perceived importance, novelty, or clarity of the empirical results.

If the reviewers and AE conclude that the manuscript did not adhere to the RR, the manuscript will be either rejected or, in the case that the AE deems a revision to be eminently doable, given a chance to make revisions.

Accepted PRRs must meet guidelines for publishing other manuscripts at JEPS.

For more information, please see our list of Frequently Asked Questions.