A primary constraint on using a pronominal anaphor is that it must agree with its antecedent in number. However, there are situations in which pronouns act as conceptual anaphors. For example, in the discourse, "I think I'll order a frozen margarita. I just love them.", the pronoun "them" does not refer to a single margarita, but perhaps all the margarltas the speaker has ever tasted. When anaphors operate in this way, they are often mismatched with their ILteral antecedent in number. Three situtations when conceptual anaphora occurs are identified: when referring to the members of a Collective Set (as opposed to the set per se), a Multiply occurring Item or Event (v/ersus a Unique Item/Event), or a Generic Type (versus a Specific Token). Two experiments are reported. The first demonstrated that subjects consider a mismatched, plural pronoun more natural than a matched, singular pronoun when it follows a Collective Set, Multiple Item/Event, or Generic Type noun. Conversely, subjects consider a matched, singular pronoun more natural when it follows an Individual Member of a set, Unique Item/Event, or Specific Token noun. The second experiment demonstrated that subjects comprehend a mismatched, plural pronoun faster than a matched, singular pronoun when it follows a Collective Set, Multiple Item/Event, or Generic Type noun, but they comprehend a matched, singular pronoun faster when it follows an Individual Member, Unique Item/Event, or Specific Token noun. This suggests that when comprehenders encounter conceptual—though mismatched anaphors—they do not have to reinstate the multiple entities into their mental representations.

Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org ) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing ( www.dpjedi.org/resources ). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx ).

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Any large dataset can be analyzed in a number of ways, and it is possible that the use of different analysis strategies will lead to different results and conclusions. One way to assess whether the results obtained depend on the analysis strategy chosen is to employ multiple analysts and leave each of them free to follow their own approach. Here, we present consensus-based guidance for conducting and reporting such multi-analyst studies, and we discuss how broader adoption of the multi-analyst approach has the potential to strengthen the robustness of results and conclusions obtained from analyses of datasets in basic and applied research.

We present a consensus-based checklist to improve and document the transparency of research reports in social and behavioural research. An accompanying online application allows users to complete the form and generate a report that they can submit with their manuscript or post to a public repository.