Dr. Amanda Kay Montoya is an Associate Professor of Quantitative Psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles. She joined the Editorial Board of Scientific Reports in 2021 and has been handling Registered Reports submitted to the journal.  

Dr. Montoya’s research focuses on developing new statistical methods that can be used to answer questions about how and when effects occur (mediation and moderation analysis), particularly in complex research designs. Additionally, she studies adoption and implementation of open science practices, particularly Registered Reports.  

*** 

In this interview, we asked Dr. Montoya to talk to us about her work as an Editor at Scientific Reports. Read on to find out more.  

What do you like most about being an Editorial Board Member and handling manuscripts for Scientific Reports?  

Scientific Reports was an early adopter of Registered Reports. My interest in supporting Registered Reports motivated me to take on an editorial role at the journal and learn more about how journals implement Registered Reports. I love supporting researchers who submit Registered Reports, and seeing the breadth of research published in Scientific Reports. It’s really fascinating to watch a study grow and develop between the Stage 1 and Stage 2 manuscripts, and how the reviewers can impact and improve the design of studies.  

We know that finding reviewers is one of the hardest parts of an editorial role. Do you have any tricks on finding reviewers?   

There are certain people who are asked to review a lot, and it’s always very tempting to ask them, even if it’s just in the hope that they’ll recommend someone. But I will often look at the recent trainees of that person or try to identify people who have relevant expertise but are perhaps untapped. For example, people who recently received their PhD, but have moved to industry. They will rarely get asked to review, even though they are good people to ask. The difficulty is finding their email address, so I will often have to message them on LinkedIn. 

Specifically, as an editor, it is important to self-evaluate who you are inviting to review papers, as these individuals can be gatekeepers in the field and are largely anonymous. As an editor, it is important to make sure the reviewers we select are diverse both in their backgrounds and their viewpoints. 

If you were to give a piece of advice to other Editors, what would that be? 

Especially with handling Registered Reports, it becomes more important for the editor to step in and make clear and decisive decisions. For example, limiting the number of revisions for a Stage 1 manuscript. Editors must be sensitive to reviewers’ requests but should also make sure that the editorial process is not excessive or a drain on the reviewers or the authors.  

How important is reproducibility in research? As an Editor, how do you help authors report reproducible results?  

Reproducibility is incredibly important in research. Ensuring that results can be independently verified strengthens scientific credibility and transparency. As an editor, it is essential to review manuscripts with this in mind, not just for content, and provide authors concrete suggestions to improve reproducibility. Additionally, editors can choose reviewers and specifically ask them to focus on issues of reproducibility and transparency, rather than focus on theory. 

Do you think Scientific Reports help reduce publication bias, and if yes – how?  

Yes, absolutely. For almost all Registered Reports I’ve handled, many of the results were null, and this did not limit the publishing ability or the informativeness of the study. I think Scientific Reports’ general approach to publishing null results helps to improve issues around publication bias.  

You are an Editor handling Registered Reports. Please give us a piece of advice on how to approach/assess this type of study, highlighting strengths and limitations of the approach, particularly concerning the specific research question and methods.  

Many reviewers find the experience of reviewing a Registered Report to be quite foreign. However, the task should be very familiar to any active academic who has written or reviewed dissertation proposals or grant proposals. I recommend that reviewers anchor in any experience with grant proposals, but there are important distinctions. First, for Registered Reports we do not need to evaluate whether the research team is well prepared to conduct the study. Additionally, for Registered Reports we need to think through the planned method and analysis and whether it is well-specified to reduce potential research degrees of freedom.

Home page: https://www.psych.ucla.edu/faculty-page/akmontoya/  
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9316-8184