Registered Report

Registered Reports are a type of empirical article in which proposed methods and analyses are registered and evaluated before the research is carried out. This format was developed to reduce biases—such as publication bias—in deductive research, while still allowing flexibility for unregistered exploratory analyses and the reporting of unexpected findings.

The main benefit of Registered Reports is that their Protocols, which contain the research questions and proposed methods, are evaluated for adequacy before any data collection. These Protocols must include an abstract, a description of the research question, a literature review, hypotheses, methods, and a proposed data analysis plan.

Registered Report Protocols undergo an initial editorial screening to verify compliance with submission guidelines. Protocols that pass this stage are then sent for peer review, following the journal’s practices. If a Protocol requires major revisions, it may be rejected before full review. If approved after peer review, the Protocol receives in-principle acceptance. Authors may then conduct the proposed study exactly as reviewed and submit the results (the Registered Report) to the journal for final consideration.

Submissions via PCI Registered Reports (PCI RR)

Cad_Lin is a PCI RR-friendly journal. Authors whose Protocols and Registered Reports have been evaluated and recommended by the Peer Community in Registered Reports (PCI RR) may submit the recommended version directly to the journal, without a new round of peer review.

For submissions via PCI RR, authors must include: (i) the link to the PCI RR recommendation and to the reviews; (ii) a statement confirming that the submitted manuscript is identical to the recommended version; and (iii) a cover letter indicating that the submission follows the PCI RR track. The editorial team will verify only whether the submitted manuscript matches the recommended version and whether it fits within the journal’s scope.

If any modification to the approved Protocol becomes necessary, authors must inform the editorial team and justify the deviation. Whenever possible, Registered Reports will be evaluated by the same reviewers who assessed the Protocol, allowing them to verify adherence to the Protocol—including analyses—and evaluate whether the interpretation of the data is appropriate. Authors must provide reviewers with access to raw data. Depending on the overall quality of the manuscript and the interpretation of the results, the study will be published regardless of the findings.

Registered Reports follow a model suited to deductive scientific inquiry and may therefore not be appropriate for studies that are purely exploratory and lack prior hypotheses. Exploratory submissions will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Registered Report Protocol – Initial Submission

Initial Protocol submissions must include the following sections and must be written in the future tense:

Abstract

Introduction

This section should include a review of the relevant literature to explain what motivated the research question(s), as well as a complete description of the objectives designed to address them. After in-principle acceptance, this section should not be changed except for minor factual corrections, typographical fixes, and the shift from future to past tense.

Methods

This section should include:

1. A description of the research procedures in sufficient detail for other researchers to reproduce the proposed methods without additional information. These procedures must be followed exactly in subsequent studies; otherwise, the Registered Report may be rejected. Any deviation from the published Protocol must be reported and justified.
2. A complete description of the proposed sample and criteria for data inclusion and exclusion. Procedures for objectively defining exclusion criteria due to technical errors or any other reason must be specified, including details on how and under what conditions data will be replaced.
3. An analysis plan, including all preprocessing steps and a precise description of all planned analyses, with appropriate correction for multiple comparisons. All covariates or regressors must be declared. When analytical decisions depend on the outcomes of earlier analyses, these contingencies must be specified and followed. Only preplanned analyses may appear in the main Results section; unplanned exploratory analyses must be placed in a separate subsection.
4. An approximate timeline for completing the study and a proposed resubmission date. Extensions may be negotiated with the editorial team.
5. Pilot data (optional)
   These may be included to provide proof of concept, effect-size estimates, or indications of feasibility. Any pilot data will be published together with the final manuscript and clearly distinguished from preregistered data.

Protocol Evaluation

Reviewers evaluating Protocols will consider:

1. The scientific validity of the research question(s) and the clarity of the study’s objectives.
2. The logic, justification, and plausibility of the proposed hypotheses.
3. The adequacy and feasibility of the methodology and analysis plan, including power analysis when appropriate, and the care taken in defining criteria for inclusion and exclusion.
4. The clarity and level of methodological detail, sufficient for exact replication of procedures and analyses.

Authors should keep in mind that any deviation from the approved Protocol may lead to rejection of the Registered Report manuscript. If unforeseen issues require changes to the preregistered Protocol, authors must immediately contact the editorial team of Cad_Lin before completing data collection. Minor modifications may be allowed if adequately justified. All deviations must be reported in the Registered Report. If authors wish to substantially modify the research question or Protocol after publication of the Protocol, and still intend to publish as a Registered Report, the Protocol must be withdrawn and resubmitted.

Once the Protocol is approved, authors must register it in the Open Science Framework or another recognized repository.

The journal accepts Protocols proposing secondary analyses of existing datasets, provided that authors supply sufficient evidence (e.g., self-certification, a letter from an independent verifier) confirming that they did not have prior access to the data. For guidance on specific cases, authors may contact the editorial team of Cad_Lin.

Registered Reports – Final Manuscript Submission

After completing the study, authors must prepare their Registered Reports for evaluation, following the structure of articles submitted to Cad_Lin.

Except for minor stylistic changes, the Introduction must remain essentially the same as the approved Protocol. Stated hypotheses may not be altered or expanded. Relevant work published after in-principle acceptance should be addressed in the Discussion section.

All preregistered analyses must be reported unless it can be logically demonstrated that an approved analysis is flawed or unsound. In such cases, authors, reviewers, and the editor must agree that the analysis is inadequate. When this happens, the analysis should be mentioned in Methods but omitted from Results, with justification.

Authors may wish to include analyses not foreseen in the Protocol—for example, a new analytical approach arising between Protocol submission and preparation of the final report, or an unexpected result. Such analyses are allowed if clearly justified, explicitly identified, and placed in a separate subsection titled “Exploratory Analyses.” Conclusions must not rely solely on these analyses.

Authors reporting null-hypothesis significance tests must report exact p-values and effect sizes for all inferential analyses.

Evaluation of Registered Reports

Registered Reports will ideally be evaluated by the same reviewers who assessed the Protocol, although new reviewers may be invited. Reviewers will consider:

1. Whether the data can test the authors’ hypotheses under the approved outcome-neutral criteria.
2. Whether the Introduction, rationale, and hypotheses match the approved Protocol (required).
3. Whether authors followed exactly the preregistered procedures.
4. When applicable, whether exploratory analyses are justified, methodologically sound, and informative.
5. Whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the data. Editorial decisions do not depend on perceived “importance” of the results.

Authors are encouraged to make anonymized raw data and digital study materials available in a public repository with a DOI link in the Registered Report.

Except for preregistered and approved pilot data, no data collected before the date of in-principle acceptance may be included. Raw data must be accompanied by explanatory notes when necessary. Authors must include all relevant analysis scripts and digital experimental materials.

Reviewers are informed that editorial decisions are based on adherence to the approved Protocol and interpretation of the results, not on perceived impact or novelty.