Ppsych Transparency And Reproducibility

Transparency & Reproducibility (ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility)

When to trigger

• The piece reports or reuses any original data and you must make it available
• The piece is meta-science and its systematic coverage/coding must be reproducible
• You are deciding what to preregister, deposit, and disclose for a field-shaping reform piece
• You want the open-science layer to be drafted from live identifiers, not promised at acceptance

Why this matters more at PoPS than almost anywhere

PoPS is a leading venue for the open-science and replication movement — much of the meta-science that reshaped psychology's methods appeared here. The journal's readers and reviewers hold reform-adjacent work to its own standard: a piece arguing for transparency that is itself opaque loses all authority. The bar is exemplary practice, especially for the reform/meta-science pieces that are PoPS's signature. Build the transparency layer early so the statements are written from real DOIs and OSF links, not aspirations.

What the obligation bites on (by piece type)

PoPS / SAGE policy facts (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准 — re-confirm on the author pages)

• Original data → repository. When original data are included, they must be available in a repository; deposit and cite the dataset (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
• Ethical-collection confirmation. Authors confirm in the cover letter that data collection followed ethical guidelines (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
• Open-practice norms. APS has historically pioneered Open Practice badges (Open Data, Open Materials, Preregistration) at its journals; confirm current badge availability and criteria for PoPS on the author pages, since policy evolves (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准 · 待核实 for the exact current PoPS badge set).
• TOP-style sharing. Treat the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines as the baseline expectation for data/code/materials sharing; map your deposits to it (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).

Building the reproducible meta-science protocol

For a reform/meta-science piece, the protocol is the design — make it auditable:

1. Preregister the sampling frame, inclusion/exclusion rules, and the coding scheme (OSF/AsPredicted) before coding, and report the registration link. Mark any deviation as a deviation.
2. Deposit the coded dataset, the coding manual, and the analysis scripts (R/Python) in a public repository (OSF, GitHub + Zenodo DOI).
3. Report reliability for subjective coding (two coders, inter-rater agreement) so the prevalence claims are not one reader's judgment.
4. Make figures reproducible — every prevalence/forest exhibit regenerates from the deposited data and script.

Checklist

• Piece type identified; the right transparency obligation selected (coverage account vs. data+code)
• Any original data deposited in a repository and cited; ethical-collection confirmation in the cover letter
• Meta-science: protocol preregistered (frame + inclusion + coding); registration link reported
• Meta-science / meta-analysis: dataset, coding manual, and analysis code deposited (OSF/Zenodo DOI)
• Inter-rater reliability reported for subjective coding
• Every prevalence/forest figure regenerates from deposited data + script
• Deposits mapped to TOP-level expectations; Open-Practice badge eligibility checked (待核实 current set)
• Transparency statements drafted from live identifiers, not promises
• AI-use and conflict-of-interest disclosures prepared per current policy

Anti-patterns

• A reform/transparency argument that is itself unreproducible (fatal credibility loss at PoPS)
• "Data available upon request" instead of a repository deposit when original data are included
• A meta-science prevalence figure with an undisclosed, unpreregistered sampling frame
• One-coder subjective extraction presented as fact, with no reliability statistic
• Promising open data/code at acceptance instead of depositing and citing it at submission
• Asserting the current badge set, TOP level, or data policy from memory rather than the live SAGE/APS pages

Output format

【Piece type】review/theory / meta-science / meta-analysis / includes-original-data
【Coverage account】search + inclusion/exclusion documented (review/theory)? Y/N · N/A
【Data deposit】original data in repository + cited; ethical-collection confirmed in cover letter? Y/N · N/A
【Preregistration】meta-science protocol preregistered; link reported? Y/N · N/A
【Code/materials】coding manual + analysis scripts deposited (DOI)? Y/N · N/A
【Reliability】inter-rater agreement reported for subjective coding? Y/N · N/A
【Reproducible figures】prevalence/forest exhibits regenerate from deposit? Y/N · N/A
【Policy re-confirm】badges / TOP level / data policy checked on SAGE/APS pages? Y/N · 待核实
【Next step】→ ppsych-editor-strategy → ppsych-submission