Skills Data Science JPSP Open Science and Transparency Reporting

JPSP Open Science and Transparency Reporting

v20260724
jpsp-open-science-and-transparency
This guide outlines the rigorous open science and transparency requirements for submissions to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP). It details compliance with APA's TOP Guidelines at Level 2, mandating the proper disclosure of data, analysis code, and materials in a trusted repository. It also covers JARS reporting standards and guides authors on stating the preregistration status, ensuring research reproducibility.
Get Skill
440 downloads
Overview

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

JPSP implements APA's Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines at Level 2 (Requirement) (effective July 1, 2021) and requires JARS reporting. Transparency is not optional polish: you must state the availability of data, code, and materials and whether the work was preregistered. Note JPSP does not offer open-science badges — the requirement is the disclosure itself, not a badge.

When to trigger

  • Preparing the transparency disclosures before submission
  • Posting data/code/materials to a trusted repository
  • Deciding what to preregister or whether to pursue a Registered Report
  • Writing the data-availability / preregistration statements

What JPSP requires (verify on the live page — 待核实 on exact wording)

  1. TOP Level 2 (Requirement). For data, code, and materials: state whether they are posted to a trusted repository, and post them (with a persistent identifier) unless a justified exemption applies (e.g., ethical, legal, privacy constraints — then explain why and how to obtain the data).
  2. JARS reporting. Follow the matching APA Journal Article Reporting Standards table (JARS-Quant, JARS-Qual, or JARS-Mixed) for your design; report participant flow, exclusions, all manipulations and measures, and effect sizes with intervals.
  3. Preregistration disclosure. State whether or not any analyses were preregistered; mark registered vs. exploratory analyses; share the (masked) preregistration link.
  4. Registered Reports. JPSP publishes Registered Reports — if your design is prospective, consider the Stage-1 protocol route (reviewed before data collection); see jpsp-review-process.
  5. Data availability. APA expects data to remain available throughout review and for at least 5 years after publication.
  6. Badges: not offered. Do not claim or design for open-science badges at JPSP.

Transparency checklist

  • Data, code, and materials in a trusted repository (OSF/ResearchBox/Dataverse/ICPSR) with a DOI
  • Data/code/materials availability stated in the manuscript (TOP Level 2)
  • Preregistration status stated; registered vs. exploratory clearly marked
  • JARS table for the design completed; reporting matches it
  • Any non-sharing justified, with README on how to obtain restricted data
  • Repository links masked for review (no author-identifying URLs)
  • Plan to keep data available ≥ 5 years post-publication

Anti-patterns

  • Saying "data available on request" instead of posting to a trusted repository at Level 2
  • Designing for a badge JPSP does not offer
  • Vague preregistration claims with no link or no registered/exploratory split
  • Disclosing materials but not the analysis code
  • A repository link that de-anonymizes the masked submission

Desk-screen triggers a section editor flags first

Post-credibility-revolution, an APA section editor can screen a JPSP manuscript before review on transparency grounds alone. These are the avoidable triggers — confirm exact requirements against the journal's submission guidelines (待核实).

Trigger Why it stalls at the editor's desk The fix before submission
"Data available on request" Falls short of TOP Level 2 posting Deposit in a trusted repository with a persistent DOI, and state it
Materials posted, code missing Reviewers cannot reproduce the analysis Post the analysis code, not just stimuli/measures
Vague "we preregistered" No registered-vs-exploratory split, no link Give the (masked) prereg link and label every confirmatory test
OSF link shows author names Breaks masked review Use an anonymized view-only OSF link
Claiming a badge JPSP does not offer open-science badges Drop badge language; the disclosure is the requirement
No JARS table Missing standardized reporting Complete JARS for the design

Worked example: a transparency block for a three-study package

Illustrative — wording to adapt, not a quotation of any real manuscript.

A preregistered three-study PPID package would carry a disclosure paragraph like: "Data, analysis code, and materials for all three studies are available at [anonymized OSF DOI]. Studies 1 and 2 were preregistered (links in the repository); Study 3 was exploratory and labeled as such. Reporting follows JARS-Quant. We will maintain availability for at least five years after publication." Note the four parts a reviewer checks: repository + DOI, the confirmatory/exploratory split, the JARS commitment, and the masking-safe link. A missing part is the most common avoidable transparency flag at JPSP. The five-year availability figure is an APA-wide norm — confirm the precise duration against the journal's current submission guidelines.

Output format

【Repository】where data/code/materials are posted + DOI
【TOP Level 2 disclosure】availability stated in manuscript? [Y/N]
【Preregistration】status stated + registered vs exploratory marked? [Y/N]
【JARS】correct table completed? [Y/N]
【Registered Report?】considered if prospective? [Y/N]
【Masked】repository links de-identified for review? [Y/N]
【Next】jpsp-review-process

Supplementary resources

Info
Category Data Science
Name jpsp-open-science-and-transparency
Version v20260724
Size 5.93KB
Updated At 2026-07-28
Language