Registered Report

Registered Reports are a form of empirical research publishing in which the study rationale, research questions, hypotheses (where applicable), methods, and analysis plan are peer reviewed before the main study is completed, and typically before confirmatory analyses are carried out. This format is intended to reduce publication bias, reporting bias, and undisclosed analytic flexibility, while also permitting clearly identified exploratory analyses and the reporting of unexpected findings.

Registered Reports are reviewed in two stages. At Stage 1, authors submit a Protocol containing the study rationale and the full prospective plan for data collection and analysis. If the Protocol is approved after peer review, it receives in-principle acceptance (IPA). Authors then conduct the study in accordance with the approved Protocol and later submit the completed Stage 2 Registered Report, which includes the results and discussion. At Stage 2, evaluation focuses on adherence to the approved Protocol, the quality of the evidence, and whether the conclusions are warranted by the evidence presented.

Submissions via PCI Registered Reports (PCI RR)

Cad_Lin is a PCI RR-friendly journal. Authors whose Stage 1 Protocols and Stage 2 Registered Reports have been evaluated and recommended by 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:

1. the link to the PCI RR recommendation and to the reviews;
2. a statement confirming that the submitted manuscript is identical to the recommended version; and
3. a cover letter stating that the submission follows the PCI RR track.

In such cases, the editorial team will verify whether the submitted manuscript matches the recommended version and whether it falls within the journal’s scope.

Registered Report Protocol – Initial Submission (Stage 1)

Stage 1 submissions must be written in the future tense and should normally include the following sections:

Abstract

Introduction

This section should present the research question(s), the theoretical or empirical motivation for the study, the study objectives, and, where applicable, the hypotheses. The Introduction should provide a full rationale for the proposed work. After in-principle acceptance, this section should remain unchanged except for minor factual corrections, typographical corrections, and the change from future to past tense.

Methods

The Methods section must provide enough detail for another researcher to reproduce the proposed procedures and analyses without needing further information. It should include, as applicable:

• A full description of the design, procedures, materials, and measures;
• A full description of the planned sample and the criteria for data inclusion and exclusion;
• Clear rules for data replacement, technical exclusions, missing data handling, preprocessing, and analytical contingencies;
• A complete analysis plan, including all planned analyses, all covariates or regressors, and any correction for multiple comparisons;
• Where hypothesis testing is used, a sampling plan justified by power analysis or another appropriate prospective sampling rationale, with a clear indication of the adopted evidential threshold;
• Where applicable, outcome-neutral checks showing that the study will be able to answer the stated research question(s), such as positive controls, manipulation checks, floor or ceiling checks, fidelity checks, or other prespecified data-quality criteria;
• An approximate timeline for study completion and resubmission.

Pilot or preliminary data may be included to establish feasibility, generate hypotheses, or estimate effect sizes, but they must be clearly identified as distinct from the preregistered study and should not serve as the sole basis for the final conclusions.

Stage 1 Evaluation Criteria

Protocols submitted as Registered Reports are evaluated primarily on the following grounds:

1. Scientific validity of the research question(s) and clarity of the study objectives;
2. Logic and plausibility of the proposed hypotheses, when hypotheses are stated;
3. Soundness and feasibility of the methodology and analysis pipeline, including the sampling plan where applicable;
4. Clarity and degree of methodological detail, sufficient both for close replication and for preventing undisclosed flexibility in procedures and analyses;
5. Use of prespecified outcome-neutral criteria, where applicable, to show that the obtained data will be able to test the hypotheses or answer the research question(s).

Because of these requirements, Stage 1 protocols will often need to be more detailed than conventional research articles.

Study Design Template

Depending on the nature of the research, Cad_Lin encourages or requires the inclusion of a study design template at Stage 1 in order to make explicit the link between the research question, the hypotheses (where applicable), the sampling plan, the analysis plan, and the prospective interpretation of different outcomes.

For full Stage 1 manuscripts in quantitative research involving hypothesis testing, inclusion of this template is mandatory. For other types of research, its inclusion is strongly encouraged.

Studies Involving Existing Data and Bias Control

Cad_Lin accepts Stage 1 submissions based on existing datasets, provided that authors make clear that the planned analyses remain prospective and explicitly describe the level of prior access to the data.

For submissions involving existing data, authors must state the degree to which the data or key variables have already been accessed or observed and, when appropriate, indicate the applicable level of bias control, following PCI RR terminology:

• Level 6: the data do not yet exist prior to IPA;
• Level 5: the data already exist but are inaccessible to the authors before IPA;
• Level 4: the data exist and are accessible in principle, but the authors certify that they have not yet accessed them;
• Level 3: the data have been accessed, but the authors certify that they have not yet observed any part of the data relevant to the planned analyses;
• Level 2: the data have been accessed and partially observed, but the authors certify that they have not sufficiently observed the key variables needed to answer the research question; additional safeguards against bias are required;
• Level 1: the authors have observed the key variables but certify that they have not yet performed the proposed analyses; stringent safeguards against bias are required.

For Levels 1 and 2, stronger countermeasures against bias and analytical overfitting will normally be expected, such as a blinded analyst, more conservative inferential thresholds, multiverse analyses, specification-curve analyses, or other prespecified safeguards.

Submissions in which the authors already know the outcomes of the proposed confirmatory analyses are not eligible as Stage 1 Registered Reports.

Protocol Preregistration

For Registered Reports handled directly by Cad_Lin, once the Stage 1 Protocol receives in-principle acceptance, authors must register the approved Protocol in the Open Science Framework (OSF) or another recognized repository.

For submissions handled through PCI Registered Reports, the approved Stage 1 manuscript is preregistered by PCI RR on OSF after IPA, in accordance with PCI RR procedures.

Protocol Deviations and Changes After IPA

Any deviation from the approved Protocol must be reported and justified.

If unforeseen circumstances require changes after IPA but before completion of the study, authors must contact the editorial team as soon as possible. Minor changes that do not alter the scientific core of the proposal and do not substantially increase the risk of bias may be accepted if properly justified and fully reported in the Stage 2 manuscript.

If authors wish to make major changes to the research question, design, or analysis plan after IPA and still publish the work as a Registered Report, the Stage 1 Protocol may need to be withdrawn and resubmitted.

Registered Reports – Final Manuscript Submission (Stage 2)

After completing the study, authors must prepare the Stage 2 Registered Report following the structure required for articles submitted to Cad_Lin.

Except for minor stylistic corrections and the change from future to past tense, the Introduction must remain essentially the same as in the approved Protocol. Hypotheses may not be altered or expanded. Literature published after IPA should be addressed in the Discussion, not by rewriting the original rationale.

All preregistered analyses must be reported unless an approved analysis is later shown to be logically flawed or methodologically unsound. In such cases, the issue must be discussed with the editor and reviewers, and the omitted analysis must still be acknowledged and justified in the manuscript.

Additional analyses that were not preregistered may be reported, provided that they are clearly identified, justified, and presented in a separate subsection such as “Exploratory Analyses”. Conclusions should not rest solely on these unregistered analyses.

Except for preregistered and explicitly approved pilot work, no data collected before the date of in-principle acceptance (IPA) may be included in the confirmatory Stage 2 report.

Stage 2 Evaluation

Whenever possible, Stage 2 manuscripts will be assessed by the same reviewers who evaluated the Stage 1 Protocol.

Reviewers will consider:

1. Whether the data meet any approved outcome-neutral criteria and are able to answer the stated research question(s);
2. Whether the introduction, rationale, and hypotheses match the approved Stage 1 Protocol;
3. Whether the authors followed the approved procedures and analyses, or fully reported and justified any deviations;
4. Whether any exploratory analyses are clearly labelled, justified, and methodologically well described;
5. Whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence.

Editorial decisions at Stage 2 do not depend on the direction, novelty, or perceived importance of the findings.

Data, Materials, and Analytical Transparency

Authors must provide reviewers with access to the raw data needed for evaluation of the Stage 2 submission.

Authors are strongly encouraged to make anonymized raw data, study materials, and analysis scripts publicly available in a repository with a persistent link or DOI whenever legal, ethical, and participant-consent conditions permit. Any restrictions on sharing must be clearly explained. Raw data should be accompanied by sufficient documentation to allow understanding and reuse.

Checklist for Authors

Before submitting your manuscript, please ensure that you have met the following requirements:

Stage 1 Checklist (Protocol)

• The manuscript is written in the future tense;
• The research question(s) and, where applicable, the hypotheses are clearly stated and explicitly derived from the literature and rationale presented;
• The methodology is detailed enough to permit exact replication, including clear rules for inclusion, exclusion, and replacement of data;
• A comprehensive analysis plan is included, detailing all planned analyses, decision criteria, and, where applicable, the adopted evidential threshold;
• When the study is quantitative and involves hypothesis testing, the study design template has been included;
• If existing data are used, the level of prior access to the data (bias-control level) is explicitly stated and the corresponding safeguards are described;
• An approximate timeline for study completion is provided.

Stage 2 Checklist (Final Manuscript)

• The abstract of the Stage 2 manuscript includes a direct URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol and states the date of in-principle acceptance (IPA) / preregistration;
• The introduction, rationale, and hypotheses remain essentially identical to the approved Stage 1 protocol, with changes limited to tense changes and clear typographical, grammatical, or factual corrections. Any methodological changes have been fully reported and justified;
• A tracked-changes version of the manuscript has been provided in order to clearly show any textual changes in the sections approved at Stage 1;
• All preregistered procedures and analyses have been followed. Any deviations have been fully reported and justified;
• Any new and unregistered analyses are clearly separated and identified under the heading “Exploratory Analyses”;
• Anonymized raw data, digital materials, and analysis scripts have been made available to reviewers and, whenever ethically possible, deposited in a public repository.

For additional information about the format, authors may consult the PCI Registered Reports Guide for Authors and the full policies, especially regarding levels of bias and bias control.