Yes. We recommend that the author(s) explain in the cover letter how the pre-analysis plan (and thus study) was modified in light of reviews from Stage 1.
The Open Science Framework offers a number of resources, including checklists, for registered reports: https://cos.io/prereg/ Nosek, et al. (https://www.pnas.org/content/115/11/2600) offer helpful reflections on challenges to registered work in practice. Declare Design help researchers formalize their research design and simulate data (https://declaredesign.org/).
Any divergences from the proposed pre-analysis plans that weaken the research design (e.g., reduce its power, vitiate the causal identification strategy, or alters the estimand) will likely lead to a negative outcome.
You may register contingencies in your pre-analysis plan (e.g., if A result is obtained, B method will be used).
It is best to register all of the planned analyses. Nonetheless, if an additional analysis only becomes apparent after the experiment is conducted, it is permissible to do additional post-hoc analyses, as long as you offer a defensible substantive or statistical rationale for the additional analysis and flag these as
That is fine! The strength of your paper should rest on the importance of the research question and quality of the research design (assessed in Stage 1 of the review process), not the perceived novelty of the results.
You will need to note and justify in the main text of the registered report any divergences from the pre-analysis plan that was accepted in principle. If unforeseen circumstances cause the authors to deviate from the design and protocol detailed in the accepted-in-principle registered report, authors are encouraged to reach
Experiments must be registered before conducting the study on an established and recognized public registry for pre-analysis plans (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, OSF, etc.).
One year is typically suggested, but researcher(s) can request a longer schedule in their Stage 1 submission cover letter when providing their anticipated timeline for completing the study.
In Stage 1, reviewers evaluate the importance of the research question and quality of the proposed design. At the conclusion of this stage, the editor may reject the submission, request revisions that may be sent back to reviewers, or accept the submission “in principle.” If a paper is accepted in
ASHA publishes four peer-reviewed scholarly journals and one peer-reviewed scholarly review journal pertaining to the general field of communication sciences and disorders (CSD) and to the professions of audiology and speech-language pathology. These journals are the American Journal of Audiology; American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology; Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research; Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools; and Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups. These journals have the collective mission of disseminating research findings, theoretical advances, and clinical knowledge in CSD.
General Questions: journals@asha.org
For Perspectives: perspectives@asha.org
