authorservices.wiley.com Open in urlscan Pro
18.165.83.85  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

POST

<form id="fileUploadForm" enctype="multipart/form-data" method="post" target="fileUploadIframe"><input type="file" id="fileSelector" name="file" style="display: none;"><input name="filename" type="hidden"></form>

Text Content

Wiley Author Services
My DashboardFind a Journal
ResourcesArrow down

See more
 * Not found

Search IconSearch Icon
LoginRegister
Reviewers  >  Journal Reviewers  >  How to Perform a Peer Review  >  Reviewing
Registered Reports
How to peer review
What is Peer Review?Become a reviewerReviewer RecognitionReviewer Resources
What is Peer Review?
How to peer review
Become a reviewer
Reviewer Recognition
Reviewer Resources


REVIEWING REGISTERED REPORTS


BACKGROUND

Registered Reports are a form of empirical article offered by a number of
journals at Wiley in which the methods and proposed analyses are pre-registered
and reviewed prior to research being conducted. High quality protocols are then
provisionally accepted for publication before data collection commences. This
format is designed to minimize publication bias and research bias in
hypothesis-driven research, while also allowing the flexibility to conduct
exploratory (unregistered) analyses and report serendipitous findings.


The review process for Registered Reports is divided into two stages. At Stage 1
(Study Design), reviewers assess study proposals before data are collected. At
Stage 2 (Completed Study), reviewers consider the full study, including results
and interpretation.


Some of the reasons why Registered Reports are a positive change for researchers
and journals are described in our post: 8 Answers About Registered Reports,
Research Preregistration, and Why Both Are Important.



GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

Stage 1 manuscripts will include only an Introduction, Methods (including
proposed analyses), and Pilot Data (where applicable). In considering papers at
Stage 1, reviewers will be asked to assess:


 1. The importance of the research question(s), for journals that normally
    include this as a criterion for acceptance.
 2. The logic, rationale, and plausibility of the proposed hypotheses.
 3. The soundness and feasibility of the methodology and analysis pipeline
    (including statistical power analysis where appropriate).
 4. Whether the clarity and degree of methodological detail is sufficient to
    exactly replicate the proposed experimental procedures and analysis
    pipeline.
 5. Whether the authors have pre-specified sufficient outcome-neutral tests for
    ensuring that the results obtained are able to test the stated hypotheses,
    including positive controls and quality checks.


Following Stage 1: Study Design peer review, manuscripts will be accepted,
offered the opportunity to revise, or rejected outright. Manuscripts that pass
peer review will be issued an in principle acceptance (IPA), indicating that the
article will be published pending successful completion of the study according
to the pre-registered methods and analytic procedures, as well as a defensible
and evidence-based interpretation of the results. Note, some journals may choose
to publish the Stage 1 Study Design after it has received an IPA, in addition to
the final Stage 2 completed study while other journals will publish only the
final Stage 2 article.  Please check your journal's specific Registered Reports
guidelines for further details.


Following completion of the study, authors will complete the manuscript,
including Results and Discussion sections. These Stage 2: Completed Study
manuscripts will more closely resemble a regular article format. The manuscript
will then be returned to the reviewers, who will be asked to appraise:


 1. Whether the data are able to test the authors’ proposed hypotheses by
    satisfying the approved outcome-neutral conditions (such as quality checks,
    positive controls)
 2. Whether the Introduction, rationale and stated hypotheses are the same as
    the approved Stage 1 submission (required)
 3. Whether the authors adhered precisely to the registered experimental
    procedures
 4. Whether any unregistered post hoc analyses added by the authors are
    justified, methodologically sound, and informative
 5. Whether the authors’ conclusions are justified given the data


Reviewers at Stage 2 may suggest that authors report additional post hoc tests
on their data; however, authors are not obliged to do so unless such tests are
necessary to satisfy one or more of the Stage 2 review criteria. Please note
that editorial decisions will be based on adherence to the approved protocols
and experimental design in Stage 1 and conclusions supported by data (even if
they are negative findings) as opposed to novelty and perceived importance of
results.

Author Resources Reviewers
Journal Reviewers
What is Peer Review? How to Perform a Peer Review
General and Ethical GuidelinesStep by Step Guide to Reviewing a ManuscriptTop
Tips for Peer ReviewersWorking with EditorsReviewing Revised ManuscriptsTips for
Reviewing a Clinical ManuscriptReviewing Registered ReportsTips for Reviewing
Rich MediaReviewing for Sound Science
Becoming a Reviewer Recognition for Reviewers Peer Review Resources
Book Reviewers
Ethics Guidelines Open ResearchHelp
Help IconHelp IconHelp
Wiley Authors
Resources My Dashboard Find a Journal
Help
Browse Help Resources Contact Author Support
Legal
Privacy Policy Terms and ConditionsCookie Preferences
Stay Connected
Wiley in Research @wileyinresearch

Copyright © 2000-2023 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.



Reviewing Registered Reports | Wiley

Live chat:Chat with an Expert