jpsp-open-science-and-transparency

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).

1. 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.

1. Preregistration disclosure. State whether or not any analyses were preregistered; mark

registered vs. exploratory analyses; share the (masked) preregistration link.

1. 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.

1. Data availability. APA expects data to remain available throughout review and for **at

least 5 years after publication**.

1. 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

• [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — OSF/ResearchBox/Dataverse, JARS, preregistration tools
• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — TOP Level 2, JARS, data-availability and badges policy