Allow content?
This content requires cookies. To view content please update your cookie preferences.
Useful links
Cambridge guidance on Registered Reports
How to peer review Registered Reports
Guidelines for JCL authors of Registered Reports
Registered Reports are a form of empirical article in which the methods and proposed analyses are pre-registered and reviewed prior to research being conducted. This format is designed to minimize bias in deductive science, while also allowing complete flexibility to conduct exploratory (unregistered) analyses and report serendipitous findings.
The cornerstone of the Registered Reports format is that a significant part of the manuscript will be assessed via peer review prior to data collection. Initial submissions will include a description of the key research question and background literature, hypotheses, experimental procedures, analysis pipeline, a statistical power analysis (or Bayesian equivalent), and pilot data (where applicable).
In the context of Journal of Child Language, this format is most likely to be suitable for larger scale experimental studies, including formal replications, as opposed to observational or case studies.
There are two stages of the submission/review process. Note that this format therefore requires reviewers to commit to both stages of the process (although authors should note that there may be exceptional circumstances in which reviewers have to withdraw and are replaced).
For Registered Report Protocols (Stage 1), reviewers assess study proposals before data are collected. Upon successful completion of this stage and acceptance, the Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1) is then published, with its own DOI, which allows authors to cite their in-progress work more easily.
For Registered Reports (Stage 2), reviewers consider the full study, including results and interpretation. At this stage, acceptance leads to publication of the full manuscript, which will be linked to the original Registered Report Protocol.
Initial proposal: Submitted by email to the Editor (optional)
Authors who are less familiar with Registered Reports are strongly encouraged to reach out in advance to determine whether their planned study is a good fit for a Registered Report. The prospective author submits a brief proposal via email to the journal’s editorial office (childlanguage@cambridge.org), which will be passed to the Editor or an Associate Editor for initial assessment. This email should contain:
- A brief description of the planned study – background, research question, basic proposed methodology (1-2 paragraphs).
- A justification for why a Registered Report (RR) is preferred over traditional submission types for the proposed study (1-3 sentences). Authors are encouraged to refer to the likely replication value of the research. High-value replication studies are welcomed in addition to novel studies.
After receipt of the proposal, the Editor or Associate Editor will write back to invite the author to submit a Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1) manuscript, or to recommend the traditional publication route. General feedback may be provided, but no commitments are made at this stage.
Stage 1: Registered Report Protocol (submitted via the JCL ScholarOne website)
Initial Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1) submissions should include the following sections:
Abstract. This is a standard abstract but without results and discussion.
Introduction. A standard introduction, i.e., a review of the relevant literature that motivates the research question, and a full description of the experimental aims and hypotheses. Please note that following acceptance, the Introduction section should not be altered (see below).
Methods and methods addendum:
Full description of proposed sample characteristics, including criteria for data inclusion and exclusion (e.g., outlier extraction). Procedures for objectively defining exclusion criteria due to technical errors or for any other reasons must be specified, including details of how and under what conditions data would be replaced.
A description of experimental procedures in sufficient detail to allow another researcher to repeat the methodology exactly, without requiring further information.
Studies involving standard methods of statistical inference must include a statistical power analysis. Estimated effect sizes should be justified with reference to the existing literature, where possible. In the case of highly uncertain effect sizes, a variable sample size and interim data analysis is permissible but with inspection points stated in advance, appropriate Type I error correction for ‘peeking’ employed, and a final stopping rule for data collection outlined. We appreciate in some areas (e.g., work with special populations) it may be difficult to obtain sufficient sample for very highly powered studies, or that sample size may depend on aspects of recruitment beyond experimenter control. In such cases, researchers should provide analyses of the level of power which they would achieve given their predicted sample size and should clearly lay out what factors will determine the sample size that they will finally obtain. Where lower power is likely in the final sample, the importance of conducting the study despite this likely lower power must be clearly articulated.
Methods involving Bayesian hypothesis testing are encouraged, but not required. For studies involving analyses with Bayes factors, the predictions of the theory must be specified so that a Bayes factor can be calculated. Authors should indicate what distribution will be used to represent the predictions of the theory and how its parameters will be specified.
Explicit quality control checks are encouraged where possible. Such quality checks might include the absence of floor or ceiling effects in data distributions, positive controls, or other quality checks that are orthogonal to the experimental hypotheses.
One deviation from the “traditional” manuscript format involves studies in which follow-up experiments rely on the outcome of prior ones. In this case the authors have two options.
Option 1: Lay out the specific logic for follow-up experiments, carefully outlining which experiments will be performed under what research outcomes from prior experiments. A flow-chart format may be employed.
Option 2: Authors can submit the first experiment as a stand-alone RR and pass subsequent follow-up experiments through the RR process (as successive Registered Report Protocol submissions) as they go.
Note that the above information can be placed in either the main Methods section or a Methods Addendum. We envisage that the Methods section will contain information standardly found in a methods section, while the addendum will contain the additional material which would be necessary for an exact replication, but would be unwieldly to include in the main body of the text. The methods addendum will be included as a supplemental material file. Some elements of the method (e.g. copies of auditory stimulus) may be shared via a data repository site, such as OSF. However, the authors are responsible for creating a sufficiently clear narrative in the methods and methods addendum to fully evaluate all aspects of the method, including stimulus choice.
Detailed data analysis plan:
Proposed analysis pipeline, including all preprocessing steps, and a precise description of all planned statistical analyses, including appropriate consideration of type 1 error inflations due to multiple comparisons. Any covariates or regressors must be stated. Where analysis decisions are contingent on the outcome of prior analyses, these contingencies must be specified and adhered to. Include details (where necessary/possible) about what will be done in the case that statistical models don’t converge. Any other cases of possible free parameters should be specified in advance as much as possible.
The data analysis plan, like the Introduction and Methods, must remain unchanged in the Registered Report (Stage 2). Any modifications must be approved.
It is strongly encouraged to specify particular tables and graphs that will be included in the Registered Report (Stage 2) - these do not need to be included in the published Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1).
Potential results and implications section:
Here the author outlines ALL possible results to the best of their ability and carefully interprets what each would say about the research question(s).
Dummy graphs for illustration purposes are encouraged.
The wording of the results may be changed from the Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1) to Registered Report (Stage 2), but the interpretations must remain consistent.
A timeline for completion of the research and the Registered Report (Stage 2) manuscript. this section is not included in the Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1) published manuscript.
Authors are reminded that any deviation from the stated experimental procedures, regardless of how minor it may seem to the authors, could lead to rejection of the Registered Report (Stage 2).
Registered Report (Stage 2): Full manuscript submitted for review
Once the study is complete, authors prepare and resubmit their manuscript for full review, with the following additions:
Submission of raw data and laboratory log:
Raw data and any digital experimental materials (e.g., stimuli etc.) must be made freely available in a public repository such as OSF (unless not allowed by ethical approval, as will have been discussed with the editor). Other than pre-registered data, no data acquired prior to the acceptance of the Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1) is admissible in the Registered Report (Stage 2) main analyses, except in rare cases as approved in advance by the Editor. Pilot data or exploratory analyses involving data collected prior to acceptance and publication of the Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1) must be clearly marked as such. Raw data must be accompanied by guidance notes, where required, to assist other scientists in replicating the analysis pipeline. Authors are also expected to upload any relevant analysis scripts and other experimental materials that would assist in replication (e.g., stimuli & presentation code, analysis scripts). This material must be referenced in the text of the manuscript for publication (e.g., in a note or data statement at the end of the text), including a DOI link to the material.
Any supplementary figures, tables, or other text (such as supplementary methods) can either be included as standard supplementary information that accompanies the paper, or they can be archived together with the data. Please note that the raw data itself should be archived (see above) rather than submitted to the journal as supplementary material.
The authors must collectively certify in the Registered Report (Stage 2) Cover Letter that all non-pilot data was collected after the acceptance of the Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1).
Background, rationale and methods:
Apart from minor stylistic revisions, the Introduction should not be altered from the published Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1) submission, and the stated hypotheses cannot be amended or added to. In the Registered Report (Stage 2), any description of the rationale or proposed methodology that was written in future tense within the Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1) should be changed to past tense. Any textual changes (barring typographical errors) to the Introduction or Methods must be clearly marked in the Registered Report (Stage 2) submission. Any relevant literature that appeared following the the acceptance of the Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1) maybe be included, but should be clearly marked and will require approval in the Registered Report (Stage 2). If the new literature impacts the hypotheses in a substantive way, the new literature should be covered in the Discussion instead.
Results and discussion:
The outcome of all registered analyses must be reported in the manuscript, except in rare instances where a registered and approved analysis is subsequently shown to be logically flawed or unfounded. In such cases, the authors, reviewers, and editor must agree that a collective error of judgment was made and that the analysis is inappropriate. In such cases the analysis would still be mentioned in the Methods but omitted with justification from the Results.
It is reasonable that authors may wish to include additional analyses that were not included in the published Registered Report Protocol. For instance, a new analytic approach might become available between the acceptance of the Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1) and the review of the Registered Report (Stage 2), or a particularly interesting and unexpected finding may emerge. Such analyses are admissible but must be clearly justified in the text, appropriately caveated, and reported in a separate section of the Results titled “Exploratory analyses”. Authors should be careful not to base their conclusions entirely on the outcome of statistically significant post hoc analyses.
Authors reporting null hypothesis significance tests are required to report exact p values and effect sizes for all inferential analyses.
The Registered Report (Stage 2) submission will most likely be considered by the same reviewers as in for the Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1), but could also be assessed by new reviewers.
Guidelines for JCL reviewers of Registered Reports
Review criteria for Registered Report Protocols (Stage 1)
In considering Registered Report Protocols (Stage 1), you are asked to use similar criteria to regular manuscripts but with particular scrutiny on the details of the methodology and data analysis. In this scrutiny, you should keep in mind that accepting a Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1) is an in-principle commitment by the journal to publish regardless of the outcome of the analyses (including null findings) so it is important that the proposed methodology and data analysis add meaningfully to the literature regardless of outcome. Specifically, reviewers will be asked to assess:
1. Theoretical merit and relevance:
Is the question theoretically important and relevant? Does the study have the potential to tell us something interesting about child language?
The logic, rationale, and plausibility of the proposed hypotheses.
2. Coverage of existing literature and writing:
Does the introduction do proper justice to the existing literature and tell a coherent story?
Is the writing overall clear and appropriate to the JCL audience?
3. Soundness and feasibility of methodology and analysis pipeline:
Is the methodology sound and described in sufficient detail to exactly replicate the proposed experimental procedures and analysis pipeline?
Are potential sources of bias described and sufficiently mitigated?
Are appropriate quality control measures in place where possible?
Are the analyses appropriate? Is it sufficiently powered? Is the timeline reasonable?
Following the peer review of the Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1), manuscripts will be accepted, offered the opportunity to revise, or rejected outright. As with a standard paper, multiple rounds of review are permitted at this stage assuming that progress continues to be made toward an acceptable submission and that the reviewers continue to believe that the theoretical merit and methodological rigor are sufficiently strong.
Eventually manuscripts that pass peer review will be issued an acceptance decision and published in the journal. The journal also commits to publish the outcome of that work (i.e., Registered Report) pending successful completion of the study according to the pre-registered methods and analytic procedures according to the timeline provided (with reasonable allowances), and provided that any quality controls are met and provided that a defensible and evidence-based interpretation of the results is provided in the Registered Report (Stage 2).
Review criteria for Registered Reports (Stage 2)
Following completion of the study, authors will complete the manuscript. The submitted manuscript will include the original Introduction and Methods sections and a new Results and Discussion sections. The Registered Report (Stage 2) 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. Consistency with the published Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1) and methodological rigor:
Are the Introduction, rationale and stated hypotheses the same as in the Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1) submission (required)?
Introduction and Methods sections should be identical and therefore there is generally no need to re-evaluate, with the exception of minor changes which should be clearly marked. In some exceptional cases larger changes may be allowed, however in all such cases the authors must obtain permission from the editor and as a reviewer you may be asked to comment on the appropriateness of the changes.
Is it clear that the authors adhered precisely to the registered experimental procedures?
Do the outcomes of any quality control checks and/or positive controls outlined in the Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1) support the interpretation of the findings?
2. Quality of Results section:
Does this section precisely follow the procedures laid out in the detailed data analysis plan?
Is the section clearly written with analyses clearly explained in a manner suitable for the JCL audience?
Are any unregistered post hoc analyses added by the authors justified, methodologically sound, and informative?
3. Quality of Discussion section:
Is interpretation of the results evidence-based and are authors’ conclusions justified given the data? Are they consistent with the logical outlined in the Registered Report Protocol (Stage 1) 'Potential results and implications' section?
Is the writing clear and logical and suitable for the JCL audience?
Note that criteria relevant for evaluating discussion sections of a standard article remain relevant, i.e. results should be critically interpreted in light of existing literature, discrepancies evaluated, and future plans discussed.
We emphasize that decisions for Registered Reports (Stage 2) should not be based on the perceived importance, novelty or conclusiveness of the results. Thus while reviewers are free to enter such comments on the record, they will not influence editorial decisions. Please avoid proposing additional post hoc tests are added in the Registered Report (Stage 2) unless they are necessary to satisfy one of the Registered Report criteria described above. In general, suggestions for analyses should be made when reviewing Registered Report Protocols (Stage 1).