Introducing Registered Reports as an Additional Article Type in Music Perception
The journal is introducing an additional, new article type - Registered Reports - where a pre-registered plan undergoes peer review in advance of observing the research outcomes. Research designs that pass peer review are offered ‘in principle acceptance’ (IPA). This means that that the results are guaranteed to be published regardless of the findings, as long as the methodology has been carried out as described.
Registered Reports is an additional new option for Music Perception; registered reports do not replace existing article types.
Registered Reports are reviewed over two stages; they are suitable for hypothesis-driven research including replications. Editors and reviewers initially consider a detailed study protocol before the research is undertaken, assessing the importance of the research question for current theory or applications, the strength of the scientific rationale, and rigour of the proposed methodology. Submissions in Stage 1 will consist of Introduction, Method, Proposed Analyses and Pilot Data. Following revision, the highest quality protocols are awarded in principle acceptance, which commits the journal to publishing the final paper provided the authors adhere to their protocol, that the work is performed to a high standard, and that the conclusions are supported by the evidence. After being granted IPA, the research plan needs to be preserved and this can be done through the OSF: https://osf.io/rr In Stage 2 a full manuscript is submitted for review. The paper is published at the end of the process as a complete article that integrates the approved protocol and outcomes.
Why is Music Perception introducing Registered Reports as an additional article type?
The Center for Open Science (https://cos.io/) notes that Registered Reports advance the report of hypothesis-driven research in at least three ways. 1) Pre-study peer review ensures that protocols are well specified so as to be reproducible and by providing an opportunity for reviewers to advise on design corrections or improvements before serious errors may happen. 2) In principle acceptance before results are known helps to prevent publication bias. 3) Selective reporting is minimized because the protocol is embedded unchanged in the final publication and re-reviewed by the panel of reviewers.