Coding Schemes for the Stage 1 Registered Report: Restriction of researcher degrees of freedom through the Psychological Research Preregistration-Quantitative (PRP-QUANT) Template

Preliminary Sample and Dummy/Blinded Data for the Stage 1 Registered Report: Restriction of researcher degrees of freedom through the Psychological Research Preregistration-Quantitative (PRP-QUANT) Template Please note: The file "overview.csv" contains an overview of our preliminary sample, however, all other files contain BLINDED/DUMMY data, which are nonsensical. These data were used to test our analysis scripts.

Preregistration can help to reduce researcher degrees of freedom, but its value depends on whether researchers specify their study plan in sufficient detail and adhere to this plan. Previous research indicates that specificity is better when preregistrations are based on structured versus unstructured template formats, although there is room for further improvement. The planned study aims to build on these findings and investigate the specificity of preregistrations based on the PRP-QUANT Template, a comprehensive template that aids the preregistration of quantitative studies in psychology. Preregistrations will be sampled from PsychArchives and coded for their level of specificity using the coding scheme of Bakker et al. (2020) and Heirene et al. (2021). We predict that preregistrations based on the PRP-QUANT Template (N = [74]) are more specific than preregistrations based on the OSF Preregistration Template (N = 52, Bakker et al., 2020, hypothesis 1). We will also inspect whether peer review can contribute further to restricting flexibility and predict higher specificity for peer-reviewed (n = [27]) than non-peer-reviewed preregistrations (n = [47], hypothesis 2), using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests. Additionally, we will examine adherence to the preregistered plans and risk of bias in reporting in the publications associated with the studied preregistrations (N = [17]). [In line/in contrast] to hypothesis 1, PRP-QUANT preregistrations [had significantly/did not have] higher specificity scores than OSF Preregistrations. Moreover, [consistent/inconsistent] with hypothesis 2, peer-reviewed preregistrations [had significantly/did not have] higher specificity than non-peer-reviewed ones. […] percent of the associated articles included undeclared deviations. [NOTE: A sentence describing the risk of bias in reporting results might be added.] We discuss the implications of our findings for the PRP-QUANT Template. Please note: This is a Stage 1 Registered Report that will be submitted to PCI RR. To maximize transparency in the further process, we have already formulated the results section and a description of the results in the abstract in past tense, but the analyses of this study have yet to be carried out. The results section is based on dummy/blinded data and, thus, values are nonsensical. To facilitate review, we have highlighted text parts that will be edited in brackets and color. In Stage 2, we will change the tense to past and append discussion and conclusion sections.

Analysis Scripts for the Stage 1 Registered Report: Restriction of researcher degrees of freedom through the Psychological Research Preregistration-Quantitative (PRP-QUANT) Template

R Markdown file for the Stage 1 Registered Report: Restriction of researcher degrees of freedom through the Psychological Research Preregistration-Quantitative (PRP-QUANT) Template, and all files necessary to knit the RMD