 All right, good morning or good afternoon or good evening wherever you're logging in from welcome It's my pleasure to greet everyone as you come in and to Introduce our guests today talking about register reports and in particular funding research and Religious studies and in consciousness research. Thanks to some generous support from John Templin Foundation and the Templin World Charities Foundation Joining us today is Mikhail Van Elk Associate Professor at Leiden University. They'll be talking about the open science of religion initiative Lara Engelberg PhD candidate at BU Amsterdam who's giving some firsthand experience with what it Took to submit a register report and get it published Olivia Lowry senior project coordinator here at the Center for Open Science talking about the funding mechanism with consciousness research and yours truly David Miller, I'm the director of policy here at the Center for Open Science and it's my pleasure to welcome everyone today Today we'll be going over An overview of what registration is and how register reports facilitate that process Then we'll be going into Lara's personal experience with publishing in the format Olivia will talk about attaching a funding mechanism to the process Um And finally we'll be talking about the open science of religion initiative and the journals associated with that with that initiative And we'll have plenty of time at the end for q&a So please use the chat feature as we are going about if there are clarifying questions or you need something You know clarified right then we'll be monitoring that And we'll politely interrupt if there's something a little bit unclear uh Most of the questions will be used in the q&a feature, please and and we'll Get most of those towards the end But again, don't hesitate to put those in and we'll make sure to either Answer them live during the webinar or if you unfortunately run out of time We'll copy those down and send them out in written form afterwards So I want to give a brief overview a little bit of the definition of Some of the mechanisms associated with register reports I'll be starting that off I like to define what precisely a pre-registration is and then how that relates to the register report publishing format A pre-registration is a time stamp research plan created before the study And its main purpose is to make a clear distinction between the planned hypothesis Testing research the confirmatory tests and any unplanned serendipitous findings Um, it's the purpose is to make the distinction between those two modes of research a little bit more clear These two modes of research research complement each other very well Uh, but they're quite different. So when we're in the context of confirmation This is traditional hypothesis testing that um, a lot of the formal statistics that we're trained in are relevant for And the goal here is to minimize false positives We don't want to assert that there is some sort of effect or trend unless we're relatively certain of it The context of the discovery is equally important. We we don't want to miss something that serendipitous or unexpected We want to minimize false negatives um, but the purpose of this is not to Uh, make inferences to wider populations The purpose of this is to generate hypotheses and the pre-registration process is a way to make the distinction Between these two modes a bit more clear Um, unfortunately we're quite oftenly faced with the tension Um, and the fact that presenting exploratory results as if they had been confirmatory makes them look more Publishable and exciting but it comes at the expense of their credibility So register reports is a publishing format that takes advantage of uh, the system and incentivizes specifically the the creation and publication of Purely confirmatory or distinctly separated exploratory research So publishing format in which peer review occurs where four results are known And it pushes peer review into two stages So the first stage of peer review takes place right as the study design process is occurring And that stage of the peer review process Authors submit the introduction Repose methods if there's any pilot data to demonstrate feasibility. That's appropriate for the first submission of a registered report And the editorial and reviewer evaluation at that point Uh Asks if the hypotheses are well-founded all the methods proposed feasible Um, and importantly other quality control checks to make sure that the study will provide an appropriate test If those are yes To all those questions the The proposed study can be offered in principle acceptance a promise to publish regardless of outcome The final stage of peer review occurs and of course after the study is conducted and those include Virtually unchanged methods or an introduction that was already submitted the results from the confirmatory hypothesis tests and any serendipitous findings are encouraged at that point As long as they're purely labeled as such and of course the interpretation and discussion The evaluation at that point Is asking whether or not the positive control succeeded if any quality control tests were required ahead of time Are the conclusions justified by the data? But very importantly Whether or not the main hypotheses were supported or significant or or novel those are specifically excluded from that second stage of peer review evaluation We know of about uh over 300 journals that offer the registry report format across many many different disciplines today, of course, we're talking about uh conducting registry reports in consciousness and religious studies And there's a comprehensive set of materials both for authors for reviewers and for editors On the website c os.io slash r r So with that it is my happy pleasure to pass the baton Lara Angbert to talk about her personal experience with publishing in the format So I will stop sharing my screen and laura will start hers Yes Okay, um, can you can you hear me well? I can hear you. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Perfect. All right, then I share my slides Um, yeah, I hope you can see them Okay, so uh, yeah, yeah Can you see looks good. Okay. Perfect. Um, yeah, hello everyone. My name is Lara I'm a PhD student in organizational cognitive neuroscience at the view in amsterdam And I'm very excited to be here today and tell you a bit about my open science journey a journey that has pretty much be Yeah, pretty much started with the salmon Um So in my phd project, um, I work on information processing mechanisms and charismatic leadership I look at how people process information from charismatic leaders and what the outcomes of people's processing paths are So I'm working in the field of organizational psychology in which charismatic leadership has a long research history And combine this with cognitive neuroscience methods So in my studies, I apply cognitive tasks such as memory or air detection tests eye tracking to examine attentional mechanisms Or e g to investigate the underlying neurophysiological responses to messages from charismatic leaders So in all of my projects, I aim to shed light on how charismatic leaders affect followers cognitive information processes And for one of my projects, I chose the registered report format So why registered reports? This fish here plays a crucial role in my motivation to start writing a registered report How did the fish motivate me to choose this format? Well, during my research master, I was very invested in learning about neuroimaging I wanted to learn how to design and conduct functional MRI studies How to analyze brain activation and draw meaningful conclusions from this data At some point, one of my teachers introduced us to a paper by Craig Bennett and his colleagues The researchers let a dead salmon view a series of photographs showing humans in different social situations And they asked the salmon To indicate what emotions the people in these photos were experiencing or why scanning the fish The researchers found significant brain activation in the brain of the fish So was the salmon engaged in the task? I think we all know the answer to that Yet why did Bennett and his colleagues find brain activation in the dead fish? The researchers aim was by no means to devalue functional neuroimaging They rather aimed at illustrating the incredible importance of choosing rigorous analysis techniques And in this particular case to point to the importance of correcting for multiple comparisons in neuroimaging data They wanted to point out the relevance of choosing appropriate methods and of reporting results in a transparent way Because otherwise you might end up with suspicious findings And this is not a problem that is unique to the field of neuroimaging These issues apply to any scientific field Publication bias, replication crisis and methodological pitfalls in cognitive neuroscience have really shaped my thinking ever since And open science, especially the register report format are one of the most effective tools to solve these problems in my view My supervisors and one of them being Michiel van Elk, who is here with us today Are strong advocates of open science and have always supported my efforts to conduct open transparent research They also introduced me to the concept of registered reports And soon after I started my phd We agreed on choosing this path for my first project So to me registered reports really have been the scientific holy grail Way of conducting research that prioritizes transparency, reproducibility, thoughtfulness And also eliminates publication bias towards only publishing positive results The submission process of our registered report requires a lot of back and forth communication a lot of emails a lot of meetings A lot of revisions before even submitting We had to think about everything Every potential obstacle that we could encounter along the way We had to think about it beforehand and made sure that we would take it into account when writing our stage one report So after a long way, we finally submitted our first manuscript the stage one manuscript containing our hypotheses a theoretical foundation and our proposed methods So I have two major associations with the outcome of that submission process constructive and time consuming In total it took us more than two years to get from stage one So submitting the introduction and method which went under review before we collected data To stage two in which we submitted our full paper containing the data Two major revision rounds adjustments due to the pandemic length review stages But also very constructive and helpful reviewers accompanied us Once we got to stage two after two revisions We finally collected the data and wrote the full manuscript and the whole process became a bit less stressful to me And I think this is mainly because I was so relieved of finally submitting the whole paper containing much of the work of my last years Our hypotheses were only partially supported and some results were inconclusive Of course, this was somewhat disappointing and I was wondering whether I made any mistakes in designing or conducting the studies But soon I realized that no fundings matter They are part of the leader follow-up phenomenon. We investigated as much as our supported positive findings are They also offer us opportunities to develop our research further and take new perspectives Throughout the process the communication with the editor and reviewers of our paper has been very clear, helpful and straightforward And at the moment we are actually waiting for the final method review. So fingers crossed But for me, it's really a two-folder process It has been an incredibly constructive and progressing But also time-consuming path And time is not exactly what you have a lot as a PhD student So would I do it again? Honestly, I'm not sure As I find myself staring at the status of my registered report on the journal submission platform I often ask myself that question From a scientific perspective, our project without any doubt has incredibly improved by choosing this path And I learned a lot about conducting open science I'm also still convinced that registered reports play a crucial role in moving science forward They are effective tools to battle underpowered or poor design and method choices as illustrated by the Salman experiment They prevent the bias of publishing only positive results and increase transparency and reproducibility Yet, I cannot easily say that I wouldn't do it again as a PhD student The length review process and the time it takes is a big minus point But I'm 100% sure that I will do it again once someday, I obtain my PhD And time, at least I hope so, will be a less pressuring factor I think it's also important to note that the length of the review process is probably very dependent on the journal and field you're working in And probably a pandemic isn't helping either One thing is for sure My urge to conduct open science has ever been growing From learning about the salmon in the scanner to getting familiar with registered reports and gaining my very own experience in writing So, what's your motivation to consider the registered report format? If you value a transparent way of working and want to contribute to reducing publication bias, I think it's one of the best paths to choose So thanks a lot for listening to my experience And I will stop sharing Thank you so much for that Lara Olivia, we could pass the Stage to you Absolutely, let me share my screen Okay, well, thank you so much Lara for sharing your experience with registered reports If you're interested in conducting a registered report, a really important question is Can you get the registered report funded and what are some funding mechanisms for doing so? Luckily for consciousness researchers and religion researchers, we have a couple of initiatives that are specifically designed For supporting researchers who are interested in using the registered reports format I'm going to be discussing the consciousness research initiative which is sponsored by the Templeton World Charity Foundation And ministered at the Center for Open Science and supported by our friends at the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness So the process begins with a pre-submission form, which you can find on our website, submitted directly to Center for Open Science The form will ask you for a variety of information, including the title of your project Timeline for its completion, which journal you would like to submit your article to and a structured abstract, which will include the background Objective and methods of the study It will also ask you to upload a separate file, which will contain the budget This form goes directly to the TNCUS where we evaluate the budget and, if necessary, send the abstract to a review panel made up of consciousness experts to determine subject matter appropriateness If approved to continue, you can then submit your Stage 1 article for peer review at participating journals, follow the registered reports process, and receive partial funding after in-principle acceptance Full funding is administered at the end of the process once the article has been reviewed Following Stage 2 peer review and all materials are shared to the maximum extent possible We will be administering 30 to 75 awards through this initiative in the range of $15,000 to $20,000 With some awards in the $50,000 range if exceptional proposals are submitted that require greater funding We encourage the budget to be heavier on participant support and to support the funding We encourage the budget to be heavier on participant support and research materials as opposed to other forms You can find a copy of the budget template linked in the application form and on our website We have a number of participating journals including Neuroscience of Consciousness, Collabra, Royal Society, Open Science, Advances in Cognitive Psychology and a range of peer community and registered reports journals Which you can see here and they're also listed on our website But if there is another journal that offers registered reports that you would like to submit to one that you don't see on this list You can go ahead and shoot us an inquiry email and we can see if submission to that journal would be possible for this initiative So just to cover a few questions we get asked a lot who is eligible to apply To be eligible for this grant an applicant must use the award fund to fund an empirical study researching consciousness Residing in an eligible country awards can't be sent to countries where us law prevents such Transactions, but you can find that list on our website as well You may have to engage in open science practices to the greatest extent possible including pre-registration study materials and analytical code sharing data sharing and posting of preprints And conduct the study and partisan at the paper for publication by the end of 2024 When our grant applications do Oh, this is a great question grant applications are accepted on a rolling basis. So grant applications Started being accepted in april of 2022 and will be closed either when funds have been exhausted or a summer of 2023 So due to the rolling nature of the application acceptance submitting application as early as possible will maximize your chances of being funded And finally, can you apply for the grant multiple times? A researcher group of researchers can apply for funds multiple times if the funds will be used in distinct studies That is a single researcher or group of researchers can apply for funding multiple times, but a study can only receive funding once Um, there's quite a bit more information on this initiative Which you can find on our website including a range of frequently asked questions So if you have any questions about the initiative, please check out our website And if you still have questions following this feel free to reach out to me my contact details can also be found on the website Okay, that's it for me. Thank you so much for your time I look forward to seeing your applications and I will turn it over to you. Okay. Thanks Good day everyone. Let me share my screen as well right so In this age of open science Replication registered reports. It's easy to lose sight of the fact that concerns about replicability date back already to decades ago So to get started I will tell you something today about the open science of religion project and many of you might know This classic study that is a textbook study in many psychology textbooks From Jerusalem to Jericho a study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior by dali and batson They asked theology students to prepare a speech A speech about the good Samaritan or a speech about the job prospects on the market And then they had to cross the road to another side of the university And on the road they came across a victim And there were multiple conditions people were either stressed to hurry up Or they were emphasized that they would have sufficient time and then the question was If theology students had prepared a speech about a good Samaritan Would they be more willing to help the victim compared to when they Prepare the speech about something else The conclusion about the original paper was it did not have any effect at all religious priming Did not make people more likely to help the victim The only effect that was significant was an effect of the time pressure manipulation Only if people were not rushed they were more likely to help the victim However This conclusion as it has ended up in the textbook was contested already at the time In a comment by Anthony Greenwald He argues does the good Samaritan parable Increase helping a comment on dali and batson He actually contests this conclusion He says if you closely look at the data and if you do a Bayesian reanalysis of the data It is actually not that clear if there was no effect of religious priming on helping behavior He basically concludes it makes it clear that more data must be collected to allow Reasonably firm conclusions about the effects of these treatments. There is a trend But the study the original study was underpowered to detect an effect And in that case he is already calling for replication with a more high powered study So I think that is clearly illustrating the relevance of registered reports If you want to show there's an effect you need to do a high powered replication study And then we moved three decades later When I was doing research myself on religious priming I used religious primes like devil angel demon god etc to see if it would make people more pro-social And I could not find effects At the same time this meta-analysis came out actually arguing that there was very strong evidence for religious priming On a wide variety of different dependent measures including pro-social behavior So I was puzzled. How can this be that I cannot replicate these findings, but in the meta-analysis there appears very convincing evidence So what we did at the time is we did a reanalysis of the data that was part of this meta-analysis And what we showed is that depending on which meta-analytic Analytic technique you choose you can either get very strong evidence for religious priming Or you can either get evidence for complete absence of religious priming It really depends on the choices you make in your meta-analysis And in that way we call for the importance of registered replications The only way forward to establish if there is an effect or if there's not an effect Is to do a registered report study or a registered replication So over the past years I've gained some experience with conducting multiple registered report studies Including a variety of different topics A variety of different journals more cognitive journals more social psychology journals And it has been an interesting learning process as Lara already illustrated Actually in many cases we obtained null results So the hypothesis were not confirmed which can happen and which is also valuable But at the same time a bit disappointing because of course you hope to have made a new scientific discovery After on a more positive side in the case of a well established paradigm We were well able to replicate and basically extend previous results And in the case of Lara we actually got mixed results and also some exploratory results that provided input for new analysis So my experience with registered reports are clear advantages that have already been listed by David as well You benefit from peer review and expert input at an early stage You get in principle acceptance and this can also be a benefit for early career researchers who care about Having a publication a guaranteed publication You can still do exploratory research, but as David nicely illustrated you can clearly Demarcate between confirmatory and exploratory analysis However be prepared for null results in many cases it turns out that reality is more complicated than you expected it to be And of course you can reduce experimental and publication bias Some perceived disadvantages. It is time consuming. It might take a lot of time I have a positive experiences that it only took a couple of months In Lara's case it took more than two years But at the same time and this is especially important to communicate to more senior researchers There's a shift of the workload So normally PhD students spend the final year of the project mostly on writing papers and writing their thesis But in this case that workload is shifted to the early stage of the process and people Actually benefit from this later on because they already have written their theoretical introduction on all their method section for all the studies And another disadvantage is feasibility specifically for high powered studies And this is where another funding scheme comes in that I would like to highlight today Which is the open science of religion project Also funded by Templeton, but in this case a John Templeton foundation The open science of religion project offers funding for conducting registered report studies in the field of the psychology of religion and spirituality And we are bound by For publications that are submitted to these three scientific journals the archive for the psychology of religion The international journal for the psychology of religion and psychology of religion and spirituality So the funding scheme is really only if you intend to submit to one of these journals and there's no there's no exception possible In this case And this is also a joint initiative from the editors of all three respective journals So this is the editorial team who is in charge of running the open science of religion project There's where davis from witton college was also joining his webinar Jordan Labouf from university of Maine was also present with us Kevin let from indiana university saw bent and then there's me and together we handle all incoming submissions on a rolling basis By the way, if you're interested to find out more information Here's the link to the project and the slides are also available on the open science framework if you want to look them up later on So the call for proposals runs from 2022 to 2024 and in total there will be funding available for Conducting 18 registered report studies on a general topic related to the psychology of religion and spirituality the awards are 20 000 us dollars and can be spent in any way you like on conferences on paying participants on Hiring research assistants or on a teaching buyout The requirements can be found on the website But basically the core of the application is stage one manuscript including the introduction and the method section of your proposal including a detailed analysis plan And on top of that a cover letter a timeline a budget estimate and a statement of institutional support But really the core is the manuscript itself The process runs as follows So first off you submit the documents to the osr website then we do an initial review for eligibility then if the proposal is Deemed of sufficient fit with the call for this project Then you can submit via the journal website and you're you're given a suggestion to submit to either of these three journals Then officially it's sent out for peer review Once you've received the in principle acceptance states then funding will be made available You can complete the project write the manuscript submit again And then all publications result resulting from this call will be published called open access Evaluation criteria for the initial stage of the manuscript are importance of the research questions logic rational employability of the hypothesis Soundness of timeline methods power budgets and applicants capacity A sufficiently detailed methodology and specific specification of outcome neutral check So we will evaluate all these five different criteria criteria and provide feedback in and also offer you the opportunity to revise your proposal if one of these criteria is yet insufficient So we also came across a couple of Frequently asked questions and based on that I've collected a couple of do's and don'ts of study designs of ideas that lend themselves really well For this call and for study as these that might Not be that suitable So I think what is really suited for this funding scheme are experimental designs experimental research We have an experimental manipulation independent variable and dependent variables Cross-sectional designs correlation of studies replication proposals like if you want to replicate the Good Samaritan effect that would be a very interesting and Idea and good fit with this call Well-powered studies obviously and cross-cultural studies So say you want to replicate a finding that has been conducted in the US in a cross-cultural context That could also be a good fit Less suitable for this call appear to be clinical populations due to time constraints difficult to get access to many cases Longitudinal designs because the project will only run three years and should be finished before the end complex statistical or theoretical models like if you have a very complex Structural equation model that is probably really difficult to do as a registered report study because many of these Things are very contingent on the data that you collect and it is really difficult to Hypothesize about all the connections between the variables in your model in advance And also important to emphasize This call is really focused on anything related to religion and spirituality So anything that is focused on using religion as a secondary mechanism is of less interest for this call So if your interest say in stereotypes and you Apply this to the topic of religion then it might be less suitable should be Religion and spirituality should be at the core If you want to learn more about potential topics and fit with this project We refer to these textbooks the handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality and the psychology of religion basically any Topic discussed in any of these books would be a good fit for this project. So you can think about Topics like religious coping prayer religion and terror management The cognitive science of religion spiritual struggles God image religious development, etc So religion should be central to the research topic and not be used as a vehicle to study something else like prejudice or help It's really a clear agenda in that sense for what would be a good fit for this call If you're uncertain and would like to have a chat with any of us feel free to reach out to us The primary contact person is the project leader ward davis So you can direct any question to him, but we also will have some time available for answering your questions right now So thanks to the co s for organizing this webinar and looking forward to this discussion Thank you so much everyone for that for the overview of Of all three of those that was really fantastic. We have a couple of questions that have come in so we'll start with those Um, and just to assure everyone My slides will be available for for sharing afterwards and You can all have a link to his slides there as well One question came in it's for Laura, but I think everyone can chime into your office Do you think if reviewers could co-author the paper would accelerate the publishing process? Laura that question is uh directed to you. Do you want to take the first stab at that? Yeah, sure. Yeah. Yeah, thank you for the question I think it's it's a very interesting one because I assume The assumption is that if reviewers have an intrinsic motivation, then they would review the paper faster um I'm not exactly sure whether I think it really depends on the person whether that would accelerate the process or not Um, I don't think it's actually a good idea to do that because then the reviewers wouldn't be Independent of the project and I think there really should be However, I think maybe journals could find a midway To uh acknowledge all the work that reviewers put into providing in our case incredibly valuable feedback So instead of leaving them these anonymous helpers, maybe it would be good to at least Um, uh, yeah Really acknowledge them by name once the paper is published because in our case They really put in a lot of time and effort and provided a lot of extensive feedback So maybe a midway would be good. Um But yeah, I don't think that co-authoring Is a good idea per se because the independence is so important especially with registered report where we try to achieve All these um things like um reproducibility transparency all these kind of things and then having really an independent party involved Is so important to the whole process um, yeah Yeah, yeah, I agree with that. I think it might be difficult to have a reviewer listed as author that that would uh Quickly pointed out some potential conflicts of interest. Um, most of the reviews that um I'm able to conduct these days. Uh, I'm fortunate to be able to sign my name to those and some um You know acknowledgement from the journals always welcome pub lawns is also a really neat platform that sometimes those uh those reviews get Listed or recognition and credit for those. So those are all um nice little bits of acknowledgement Um that that journals have done for for reviewers It might be good to point out that as part of the open science of religion projects reviewers are also offered a small Renumeration for their uh review they provide. I don't know if that's the same for the consciousness goal But uh, uh in order to increase the effort they put in and that they really take it seriously They get a small reward financial reward Yeah, unfortunately, that's not part of the um, uh consciousness study process, but that is uh I think a very Welcome contribution to the effort that's put into my reviewers Another question is here in the chat. I'm just reading out one question We have gotten a lot from prospective applicants is what's the following criteria if your review means Would one um, we don't know must please explain what the outcome neutral tests positive controls quality control checks are Why they're a critical component of registered reports? Um, Mikael do you want to take the first step at that or I'd be happy to Yes, I can uh try to provide a partial answer So indeed, uh, it is a bit vaguely defined. I think or not always clear what what is meant by this But basically, uh, what you mean with uh, uh outcome neutral tests is that you want to have some guarantee that for instance your experimental manipulation was successful So for instance in the case of religious priming you want to make sure that uh, what you were priming was indeed related to Religion versus something neutral So you have a you can have a simple manipulation check simply asking participants What was the story about that you just read or what was the video about that you just saw And there at least you expect that people will indicate. Well, that story was about a religious figure Or that story was about something completely different And that is a check to to ensure that your manipulation basically was effective before before you actually look at your dependent variable of interest So this is something we did for instance in a study on priming control So we wanted to prime people to feeling control or to have a lack of control Uh, and then see if that would increase their belief in controlling god But first off we needed to check if indeed people were feeling less in control So that is in that case a positive outcome or or not positive But a neutral outcome neutral test to just ensure that what you manipulated was indeed successful and then The other positive controls and quality checks are I think mainly related to The checks and balances that you build in In order to ensure that your data is of sufficient quality So in case of an online study for instance, you can have some quality checks about how much time did participants spend on the survey And if you already have an indicator that they only spend 20 seconds That would be a good reason a priority to exclude them And this is something you should think about in advance like not afterwards coming up with hey actually People were quite fast, but this is these are things that you can think through in advance and That are related to the quality of the data that you could that you collect outlier exclusion criteria Well, how do you define these when do you leave a participant in etc? So those are the two aspects that uh that I can think of when it comes to these this criterion Yeah, I would encourage you to think about uh at the end of the study if you're confronted with null results How can you demonstrate that the that the study was conducted in a proper manner? So often when we have null results A we can be discouraged thinking that we just didn't know what we're doing or you know a critical reviewer could look at that And say well, of course it failed they they didn't Conduct the experiment properly. So whether some some sort of demonstration that the That the methods were properly administered Is some way to make sure and of course thinking of that ahead of time It's far more powerful than thinking that post talks are making up an explanation After the fact why the null results could be Could be meaningful so Think of a critical reader Reading a study after null results are known. How can you prove to that future unknown person? That the that the work was conducted as as it should have been um The question just came in what is needed from a journal to be included in the rr list I'll answer that in a couple of different ways. So just a reminder that The open science of religion has those three journals and those are kind of set by the criteria of the grant the List that's available on the rickshaw report website COS.io r r r any journal that conducts peer review before results are known And offers an in-principle acceptance a promise to publish regardless of the main outcomes of the study those are the two key criterion for Publishing a rickshaw report. And so if there are journals that you're aware of that offer those that are not available on the website Then we can make sure that those are listed quickly For the consciousness studies that um Olivia was talking about If there's a journal that either you want to publish in or that you're familiar with and you think should be included on That list of journals we can add that just with a quick check to make sure it's okay Um, but for content area appropriateness and double check with the journal as well Question just came in. I'll read it out from Cameron to Mikhail here When you say that religion should be central in the submissions To your project. How stringent is that for example if an applicant is interested in Prejudice against a religious group for example Muslims or even against non-religious groups such as atheists What would we what would need it to be show that religious and not prejudice is the main area of study Yeah, it's a delicate balance and I think there's no definite answer there It will be judged on a case by case basis and if it's really clear that It is Related I mean religion is related to your project proposal Then I think it is of a sufficient fit for this specific call but it will be just on a case by case basis and I mean If you're interested in intergroup processes For instance or just in prejudice as a general phenomenon and only use the example of religion as a tool to gain insight in intergroup processes That is secondary But if you really have a nice integration of say I want to know how for instance world views interact with Stereotypes and prejudice or intergroup conflict Then I think you can make a stronger case that religion is not only a vehicle for Understanding another process, but it's also central a central ingredient of the process you're interested in So I think that is uh Should become clear from the proposal that it could not be the case that you could also focus on Other world views or any other intergroup phenomenon like football players versus tennis players or whatever It should be really clear why it is relevant to study this in a religious context And this is to do with the the funding agenda basically by john tempton They were very clear upfront like okay We are interested in funding this but it should fit with the general donor intent of of our funding foundation And that's one thing that we are double checking to you with the consciousness studies Those that are study that are publishable in neuroscience and consciousness is right in line with the Area of research that is is fundable And when it's going to another journal that that is we do have a Panel made up of board members from the association the scientific study of consciousness To help us verify that as well I don't see any other questions either in the q&a or the chat If additional questions do come on, please shoot us an email and we would be happy to chat more and Both of these initiatives are ongoing to the next uh Actually double correct me if i'm wrong next several months. Mikhail is that correct? At least uh the the next couple of years so the this couple of years until 2024 But it will be done on a rolling basis. So at some point if the funding is uh Is gone then it will no longer be able to apply but at this moment there's still Uh opportunity to apply so plenty of time to apply free to reach out There's one more question came in. I was a little bit premature there Could I could we chat a little bit about what predictions regarding what um religiosity should predict our most in need of extra data? Um That's that's actually an interesting question uh and difficult to answer straight away I think uh recently there have been two or three review papers actually about replication and open science in Psychology of religion and spirituality that actually list Uh a couple of topics and studies that could be uh a good candidate for replication. So i'm happy to look up Uh those papers and share them with you Things I think that that are really obvious is uh are for instance Um, we recently ran a big religious replication project and based on that a couple of other suggestions came up to study for instance, uh Uh, this idea of promiscuous Stilology this idea that everyone has an intentional or this tendency to attribute intentions to a natural phenomena Work with depp caillum and it's been very influential in the psychology of religion And could be expanded in a much more broader cross-cultural context as well Something else justin barrett has conducted research on uh god concepts showing that people have a theological god concept Like god is powerful. He knows everything. He's loving but at the same time people in daily life endorse a very anthropomorphic god concept. That's also based on only a few preliminary studies. So that is also very I think low hanging fruits to uh to replicate and then extend in a cross-cultural context as well to see To what extent those findings hold up But as said, I think there are two or three excellent review papers on this topic that i'm uh, I would be happy to share with you Uh, can we talk about the assessment criteria? Um, is that for registered reports in general? They I can make sure put a link to that and Mikael, did you want to um, I think he's Timothy's asking specifically about for religion Uh, the evaluation criteria uh importance of the research question logic soundness methods and outcome neutral tests. So those were the five criteria I think a general comment that I could still add is uh, so based on david's presentation What we often see that goes wrong in practice when people prepare a submission is That's like this this nice distinction where a registered report really helps you to demarcate exploratory from confirmatory research Is really what you should keep in mind and many of the proposals that we've encountered are actually Rather exploratory like they propose a completely new experimental approach or a new study idea or a new structural equation model That would lend themselves perfectly well for a completely exploratory study But then it is not clear why this should be done as a registered report because One asset of the registered report is that you already have some something to build on that you know already Approximately what the relationship is between variable a and variable b So that is that slide basically that I still see in front of me like that the registered report demarcates Exploratory from confirmatory research Is important to keep in mind and to what extent your study would fit with a confirmatory approach Well, then it's a good fit with the registered reports. If it's a completely new out of the box id Well, maybe it might be better to just do the study As an exploratory study and once you have a better sense of exactly how the results bear out then You can do a preregistration or consider doing it as a registered report I just put a link into the chat for A checklist that chris chambers has created He's the chair of the registered reports committee and has reviewed more registered reports than I can uh ever account to So he knows what makes a good submission and what what doesn't and and those items on that checklist are available on the registered report website And those kind of help provide Reminder of some important criteria to include in that stage one submission Ward provided the criteria there Thank you and with that, I think I would like to thank again the panel for your your time and your input and for working on all these initiatives and Sometimes I like to End meaning a little bit of a cheesy way. We here at the center of urban science We sometimes shout go science when it's time to uh to log out. So I will um conclude this Webinar with the shout of go science And hope everyone has a great day