Open Science & Transparency (devpsych-open-science-and-transparency)

Developmental Psychology has adopted the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines, so a submission is judged partly on disclosure, data/materials availability, and preregistration. The developmental twist is that much data come from minors and vulnerable populations, so "share everything" is tempered by consent scope, confidentiality, and re-identification risk — handled as a justified, documented constraint, not silent opacity. Build this early, not at acceptance.

When to trigger

• Building data/materials deposits and the data-availability statement
• Deciding whether and how to share data collected from children/vulnerable groups (and what to withhold)
• Linking a preregistration and reporting its status under JARS
• A reviewer or editor flagged transparency, reproducibility, or sample-size justification

What TOP-style transparency asks (verify current wording on the official page)

1. Data and materials availability. Make data, analysis scripts, and materials available where ethically possible, with a data-availability statement; constraints (consent scope, minors' confidentiality, IRB limits) must be stated and justified, with an access path where feasible.
2. Persistent identifiers (DOIs). Use repositories that mint DOIs (OSF, ICPSR, Databrary, Dataverse, Zenodo) — not transient personal links. Databrary is purpose-built for sharing developmental video and identifiable data under permission.
3. Preregistration. Preregister confirmatory developmental hypotheses and the analysis plan; report the status honestly and keep confirmatory/exploratory consistent end to end (JARS).
4. Sample-size justification. Provide an explicit basis for N (power for the change parameter, precision, or a decision rule) — required reporting, not a nicety (see devpsych-study-design).
5. JARS disclosure. All exclusions, conditions, measures, and how sample size was determined.

Build-it-right checklist

• Data deposited with a DOI and a data dictionary/codebook (or a justified exemption)
• Analysis scripts deposited; results regenerate in a fresh session
• Materials (tasks, stimuli, coding manuals) deposited with a DOI where licensing allows
• Preregistration linked (anonymized for masked review); confirmatory/exploratory consistent
• Data-availability statement drafted, stating what is shared and what is restricted, and why
• Sample-size justification reported (power for the change parameter)
• Minors'/vulnerable-population data handled per consent and IRB; identifiable material via a permission-based archive (e.g., Databrary) or de-identified with documented limits
• Shared links anonymized for the masked submission

Sharing data from minors — do it honestly

• If full open data are not ethical (consent did not cover broad sharing, video is identifiable, IRB restricts redistribution), state what is restricted, why, and how others can access or approximate it — restricted-access archives (ICPSR, Databrary), de-identified extracts, synthetic data, or code release. Unjustified opacity counts against the paper; a documented constraint does not.

Data-availability statement — worked draft (illustrative)

For the three-wave effortful-control package; confirm current required wording on the official page.

Data availability: De-identified trial-level data and analysis scripts for
  all three waves are openly available at OSF (DOI 10.XXXX/osf.io/abcde),
  with a codebook. Identifiable observational video is shared under
  permission via Databrary (DOI 10.XXXX/...), consistent with consent and IRB.
Materials: Task scripts and the effortful-control coding manual are deposited
  (DOI 10.XXXX/osf.io/fghij).
Preregistration: Hypotheses, the invariance-test plan, and the growth model
  were preregistered before wave-3 analysis (osf.io/pqrst).
Constraints: Raw video cannot be openly posted (identifiability, minors);
  access is available to authorized researchers via Databrary.

Transparency-readiness decision table

Reviewer / editor pushback and the venue fix

• "No DOI, just a personal link" → swap every transient link for a persistent identifier or a restricted archive before the masked submission.
• "Statement says open but the repo is empty" → deposit first, draft the statement from live DOIs.
• "How can children's video be shared?" → use Databrary/permission-based access; state the path, do not post identifiable material openly.
• "No sample-size justification" → add the power/precision rationale for the change parameter.

Anti-patterns

• Treating data/materials sharing as optional or "available on request"
• Posting identifiable data from minors openly (a confidentiality breach), or refusing all sharing with no justification
• Personal/transient links instead of DOIs / restricted archives
• Omitting the sample-size justification
• Identifying author info in OSF/Databrary links during masked review

Output format

【Open data】deposited + DOI + data dictionary (or justified restriction)? [Y/N]
【Open materials】deposited + DOI? [Y/N]
【Analysis scripts】deposited + fresh-session reproducible? [Y/N]
【Preregistration】linked (anonymized) + consistent with reporting? [Y/N/NA]
【Data-availability statement】drafted (what is shared / restricted / why)? [Y/N]
【Minors' data】handled per consent/IRB via permission-based access? [Y/N/NA]
【Sample-size justification】reported? [Y/N]
【Next】devpsych-review-process

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — OSF, ICPSR, Databrary, Dataverse, Zenodo, preregistration templates
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — TOP guidelines, data policy, and JARS