Awesome! Thanks for the shoutout, Andrew. And, good luck with the revision! If you have any feedback about what works and what doesn’t, we, of course, welcome any and all feedback ☺️

involves a lot of work, time, and skill. I’m optimistic that change in the name of transparency and rigor is on the horizon ☺️

evaluate.) Of course, prereg itself is a skill to be honed (and research doesn’t always go according to plan), so deviations are expected. But, transparency is key. At the same time, all of that does not correct the past lit and like you mentioned, to fully evaluate adherence to prereg plans

Yes totally! The primary solution we suggest is for authors to fill out the standardized prereg deviations table (to be published along with article), and then AEs/reviewers can evaluate table during the review process to determine risk of bias. (And then future readers would have access to info to

(TLDR: not disclosing deviations will negatively impact editors perceptions of work and there’s notable variability in what types of deviations are considered major/minor or justifiable, at least among psychology journal editors).

My colleague Emily Willroth and I had the same questions! You might be interested in our forthcoming paper: osf.io/et6km/