Bilingualism: Language and Cognition is now accepting proposals for Registered Reports.

Registered Reports differ from normal articles and have specific guidelines for authors and for reviewers. Please consult these carefully and in conjunction with the journal’s primary Instructions for Contributors.

---

Jump to Guidelines for Authors

Jump to Guidelines for Reviewers

---

Registered Reports – Bilingualism: Language and Cognition

Specific Guidelines for Authors

Note: For general instructions for submissions, please also consult the Instructions for Contributors.

Registered reports are empirical articles for which the design and proposed analyses are pre-registered in order to minimize bias in deductive science. That means before any data is collected, the theoretical footing and methodological aspects of the proposed research are evaluated by editors and reviewers, with only the highest quality submissions accepted in advance.

Initial submissions must include a description of the key research question along with background literature, hypotheses, experimental procedures, analysis pipeline, statistical power analyses (if appropriate), and pilot data (where applicable).

The two stages of the submission/review process are schematised as follows:

Each of the stages is described in detail below.

Stage 1: Manuscript before data collection (submitted via BLC ScholarOne website)

Stage 1 submissions should be written in the future tense and contain the following sections:

1. Abstract


2. Introduction
   • A thorough literature review providing background information, motivation of research questions, full description of aims and hypotheses (N.B.: No alterations following IPA possible → see below for details)


3. Methods plus Addendum
   • Sample characteristics, including procedures for defining inclusion and exclusion criteria and outlier removal.
   • Statement whether informed consent will be obtained and whether the study has approval by a local Ethical Committee.
   • Experimental procedures in sufficient detail for potential replication by other researchers (N.B.: If not adhered to exactly, Stage 2 manuscripts may be rejected).
   • If applicable, statistical power analysis, justification of estimated effect sizes based on existing literature. In the case of highly uncertain effect sizes, authors may employ a variable sample size and conduct an interim data analysis; in this case, inspection points need to be stated in advance, appropriate Type I error correction for ‘peeking’ must be employed, and a final stopping rule for data collection must be provided.
   • If possible, explicit quality control checks (e.g., absence of floor and ceiling effects in data distributions, positive controls, other quality checks that are orthogonal to experimental hypotheses).
   • Timeline for data collection and resubmission after Stage 1 (N.B.: Extensions may be negotiated with the action editor if necessary).
   • In case of follow-up experiments based on the outcome of prior ones, there are two options: Authors may (1) describe the logic of the follow-up experiments and outline carefully (e.g., in a flow-chart) which outcomes would lead to the selection of the individual follow-up experiments or (2) initially submit the first experiment as RR and submit the follow-up experiments into the RR process as they arise (i.e., as successive Stage 1 submissions).




N.B.: The Methods section should contain information standardly found in a methods section, with the addendum containing the additional material which would be necessary for an exact replication.

4. Detailed Data Analysis Plan
   • Proposed analysis pipeline (incl. pre-processing steps), precise description of planned statistical analyses (incl. consideration of Type I error inflations), covariates and regressors.
   • If analyses depend on the outcome of prior analyses, contingencies must be specified and adhered to.
   • Planned course of action in case of non-convergence of statistical models.
   • Any possible free parameters should be specified in advance.
   • Justification for the particular analysis plan.


5. Potential Results and Implications
   • Description and interpretation of potential outcomes (to author’s best ability), specifying the theoretical implications of the different outcomes.
   • If possible, dummy graphs for illustration.


6. Timelines
   • Timeline for completion of the research
   • Timeline for Stage 2 manuscript


7. Protocol transparency
   • Statement confirming that, following Stage 1 in-principle acceptance (IPA), the authors agree to register their approved protocol on the Open Science Framework or another recognised repository, either publicly or under private embargo until submission of the Stage 2 manuscript.

For the submission via the BLC ScholarOne website, select “Registered Report (Stage 1)” as manuscript type.

After successful in-house review, submissions will be sent for external review. Following Stage 1 peer review, there will be three possible outcomes: (1) The manuscript is accepted (in-principle acceptance (IPA)); (2) the authors are offered the opportunity to revise (multiple rounds of review are possible); or (3) the manuscript is rejected. For more details on the review process, see Instructions for Reviewers of Registered Reports.

Note: Any deviation from the stated experimental procedures after IPA could lead to the rejection of the manuscript at Stage 2. In cases of alterations after IPA due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g., change of equipment, methodological advances, technical errors), the authors should immediately seek permission from the editors (i.e., prior to data collection). If permission is granted and alterations are limited to minor changes to the protocol, IPA is preserved and the changes must be reported in the Stage 2 submission. In cases of more substantial changes, the manuscript must be withdrawn and resubmitted as Stage 1 submission. In any case, all registered analyses must be conducted. In addition, unregistered analyses may also be included in the final manuscript (see below).

Stage 2: Full manuscript submitted for review

Once the studies are completed, authors resubmit their manuscript for full review (i.e., the system will consider your manuscript as a new submission with a new number. On the BLC ScholarOne website, select “Registered Report (Stage 2)” as manuscript type. Stage 2 requires the following additions:

1. Submission of raw data and laboratory log

• It is not permitted to include data acquired prior to the date of IPA (except for pilot data or exploratory analyses involving data collected prior to the IPA, which must clearly be marked as such).
• If applicable, guidance notes for raw data to enable replication of the analysis pipeline.
• Relevant analysis scripts and other experimental materials that would assist in replication (e.g., stimuli and presentation code, analysis scripts). This material must be referenced in the main document.
• Raw data should be archived (not included as supplementary material). Supplementary figures, tables, or other supplementary methods can be archived together with the data or included as standard supplementary information.

Note: In the cover letter, the authors must certify that all data, with the exception of pilot data, were collected after the date of IPA. Please also state your original submission number here.

2. Background, Rationale and Methods

• Introduction should not be substantially altered from the approved Stage 1 submission (minor stylistic revisions are allowed).
• Hypotheses cannot be amended or appended.
• Textual (apart from typographical) changes to the Introduction or Methods must be clearly marked.
• Relevant literature published post-IPA date, should be clearly marked and will require approval at Stage 2. If substantially impacting the hypotheses, the new literature should be covered in the Discussion instead.

3. Results and Discussion

• Outcome of all registered analyses must be reported – except if subsequently shown to be unfounded (in such cases, the authors, reviewers, and editor must agree that the analysis is inappropriate; the analysis would still be mentioned in the Methods but omitted with justification from the Results).
• Additional, not registered analyses may be included. They must be clearly justified in the text, appropriately caveated, and reported in a separate Results section “Exploratory analyses”.
• For null hypothesis significance tests, exact p-values and effect sizes for all inferential analyses have to be reported.

4. Project Plan

• The IPA-version of the Stage 1 manuscript must be included for comparison.
• Please select “Research Plan (for Registered Reports only)” as file designation when uploading.
• Upon acceptance, the project plan will be published as supplementary materials.

The resubmission will most likely be considered by the same reviewers as in Stage 1 but could also be assessed by new reviewers.

Manuscript Withdrawal and Withdrawn Registrations

Authors with IPA may wish to withdraw their manuscript following or during data collection due to technical error or inability to complete the study. In such cases, manuscripts can be withdrawn at the authors’ discretion. However, partial withdrawals are not possible (i.e., authors cannot publish part of a registered study by selectively withdrawing one of the planned experiments); instead, the entire paper must be withdrawn. If studies are not completed by the agreed Stage 2 submission deadline will be withdrawn – unless an extension was negotiated with the editor.

Last updated: 29 July 2022

---

Registered Reports – Bilingualism: Language and Cognition

Specific Guidelines for Reviewers

Registered reports are empirical articles for which the design and proposed analyses are pre-registered in order to minimize bias in deductive science. The two stages of the submission/review process are schematised as follows:

Stage 1: Manuscript before data collection

After successful in-house review, submissions will be sent for external review. Similar criteria to regular manuscripts should be used but with special attention to methodology and data analysis. Reviewers should asses the following points:

1. Theoretical merit and relevance
• Is the question theoretically important and relevant?
• Does the study address bilingualism in the individual?
• Are the proposed hypotheses logical and plausible? Do they have a clear rationale?
• Are all potential outcomes well described and their theoretical merit convincing?


2. Coverage of existing literature and writing form
• Is the relevant existing literature presented and discussed comprehensively and appropriately?
• Does the introduction tell a coherent story?
• Is the writing overall clear and appropriate for the BLC readership?


3. Soundness of methodology and feasibility of analysis pipeline
• Is the methodology sound?
• Are the details of the methodology presented in sufficient detail to enable other authors to replicate the study easily?
• Are potential sources of bias described and sufficiently mitigated?
• Are there appropriate measures to control quality where possible? Independently of the main outcomes of the study, are there sufficient checks (e.g. floor or ceiling effects, positive controls, manipulation checks) to ensure that the work was conducted to a very high standard?
• Are the analyses appropriate? Is there enough power to detect effects?
• Is the timeline reasonable?

Following Stage 1 peer review, there will be three possible outcomes: (1) The manuscript is accepted (in-principle acceptance (IPA)); (2) the authors are offered the opportunity to revise (multiple rounds of review are possible); or (3) the manuscript is rejected.

Note: Acceptance at Stage 1 is an in-principle acceptance (IPA). In other words, the journal commits to publish pending successful completion of the study according to the pre-registered methods, the timeline provided, and granted an evidence-based interpretation of the findings provided at Stage 2. This does not depend on the outcome of the analyses (i.e., null findings are also published).

Stage 2: Full manuscript after data collection

The Stage 2 manuscript will contain the original Introduction and Method sections (as approved in Stage 1) and the new Results and Discussion sections (N.B.: Other sections approved at Stage 1 will appear in the final published manuscript as supplementary materials). Reviewers will be asked to assess the following:

1. Consistency with Stage 1 approved submission and methodological rigour
• Are the Introduction, rationale and hypotheses the same as in Stage 1 version?
• Is the Methods section identical to the Stage 1 version? If not, please check for and assess any more substantial changes.
• Did the authors adhere to the registered experimental procedures?
• Do quality control checks and/or positive controls (as outlined in Stage 1) support the interpretation?


2. Quality of Results section
• Does this section precisely follow the approved analysis plan from Stage 1?
• Are the results presented clearly and explained in a manner suitable for the BLC readership?
• In case of unregistered post-hoc analyses, are these justified, methodologically sound and informative?


3. Quality of Discussion section
• Is the interpretation evidence-based and are the authors’ conclusions justified?
• Is the writing clear and logical and suitable for the BLC readership?
• Plus: Criteria for evaluating Discussion sections of standard articles

Note: Decisions at Stage 2 should not be based on the perceived importance, novelty or conclusiveness of the results. Please avoid proposing additional post-hoc tests at Stage 2 (unless necessary to satisfy the above criteria); these suggestions should be made at Stage 1.

Last updated: 29 July 2022