AI Registered Report Stage-One Narrative: Drafting Pre-Data-Collection Protocol Summaries

End-of-lesson check

15 questions · take it digitally for instant feedback at tendril.neural-forge.io/learn/quiz/end-research-AI-and-registered-report-stage-one-narrative-r8a3-creators

1. What is the primary function of a stage-one registered report narrative?

   1. To summarize hypotheses, design, sampling, and analysis plans for reviewer approval before data collection
   2. To present final research findings and conclusions
   3. To compile a bibliography of relevant literature
   4. To analyze data that has already been collected

2. When AI drafts a stage-one registered report narrative, which of the following represents what AI does well?

   1. Making final decisions about whether the research is ethically sound
   2. Reading the room when concerns are political, ethical, or relational
   3. Restructuring raw notes into a coherent, decision-ready summary that surfaces unresolved questions
   4. Determining which stakeholders need private conversations before the document circulates

3. A researcher submits a stage-one protocol for a registered report. After acceptance, they notice a minor measurement error in their survey instrument. How should they proceed?

   1. Replace the instrument with a better one without notification
   2. Treat it as an exception request requiring reviewer approval
   3. Silently fix the error before data collection begins
   4. Add the correction to the final paper's appendix

4. Why is it important to 'lock in' a research design before data collection begins?

   1. To prevent HARKing (Hypothesizing After Results are Known) and confirm the study was designed to test a priori hypotheses
   2. To prevent reviewers from seeing preliminary findings
   3. To ensure the researcher cannot change their hypothesis based on results
   4. To demonstrate that the research question is novel and interesting

5. A graduate student asks AI to draft their stage-one registered report narrative. Which limitation should the student be most cautious about?

   1. AI cannot determine which stakeholders need separate conversations before the document lands
   2. AI cannot generate hypotheses from scratch
   3. AI cannot write in APA format
   4. AI cannot verify the statistical power of the proposed design

6. When drafting a stage-one protocol narrative, what does it mean to include 'caveats' in the substantive points?

   1. Providing a summary of previous studies on the topic
   2. Explicitly stating the limitations and conditions that might affect the interpretation of the study
   3. Acknowledging that the research may not yield publishable results
   4. Listing any funding sources and conflicts of interest

7. An AI generates a stage-one protocol draft but fails to surface certain unresolved questions implied by the research design. What is the risk?

   1. The university will require additional training
   2. The reviewer will automatically reject the protocol
   3. The protocol may be approved with hidden flaws that cause problems during data collection
   4. The AI will be held responsible for the errors

8. Why must post-acceptance edits to a registered report protocol be treated as 'exception requests' rather than standard revisions?

   1. Because peer reviewers are no longer available
   2. Because any modification after acceptance could signal that the original design was changed to accommodate favorable results
   3. Because the journal wants to avoid additional work
   4. Because the funding agency requires it

9. What type of concerns is AI specifically unable to address when drafting a registered report narrative?

   1. Statistical analysis plans
   2. Citation formatting
   3. Political, ethical, or relational concerns that are not purely analytical
   4. Word count requirements

10. A research team wants to use AI to draft their stage-one protocol. What should they provide as input to get the most useful output?

    1. A fully written literature review
    2. Their anticipated results and conclusions
    3. Their budget and timeline constraints
    4. Raw notes on the protocol including hypotheses, design, sampling, and analysis plans

11. What distinguishes a well-written stage-one protocol from one that is not ready for reviewer sign-off?

    1. Whether it is decision-ready with explicit asks the reviewer must resolve
    2. Word count and formatting
    3. Whether it includes specific predictions for exact p-values
    4. Whether it cites the most recent literature

12. A researcher uses AI to draft their stage-one registered report. After submission, a reviewer asks about potential conflicts of interest. Who is ultimately responsible for identifying and disclosing these?

    1. The journal editor
    2. The researcher or research team
    3. The AI system that drafted the document
    4. The peer reviewer who noticed the issue

13. What is 'narrative framing' in the context of stage-one registered report protocols?

    1. The one-paragraph headline that contextualizes the study's purpose and significance
    2. The way the final results will be written up for publication
    3. The literature review that establishes the research context
    4. The statistical story that will be told about the data

14. A university requires all honors theses to be submitted as registered reports. A student uses AI to draft their stage-one protocol but the AI fails to mention that their proposed sample size may be too small for reliable detection of effect. What is the main concern?

    1. The AI will be accused of academic misconduct
    2. The university will ban the use of AI
    3. The protocol may be approved but the study will be underpowered, wasting resources
    4. The student will automatically fail the course

15. After a stage-one registered report is accepted, the researcher discovers their hypothesis is no longer theoretically justified due to a recent publication. What should they do?

    1. Submit a new stage-one protocol and withdraw the accepted one
    2. Use the new literature in the discussion section of the final paper
    3. Quietly revise the hypothesis to match the new literature
    4. Publish the accepted protocol as-is to maintain registered status