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)
| Piece type |
Where transparency applies |
| Integrative review / theoretical statement |
the systematic coverage account (search strategy, inclusion/exclusion from ppsych-literature-synthesis); no new data of its own |
| Meta-science / methodology |
the systematic protocol — sampling frame, coding scheme, double-coding/reliability, and the data + code behind every prevalence figure or statistic |
| Meta-analysis with a superordinate message |
full meta-analytic dataset, effect-size extraction, and analysis code, reproducibly deposited |
| Any piece including original data |
the data must be in a repository; the cover letter confirms ethical data collection (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准) |
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:
- 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.
- Deposit the coded dataset, the coding manual, and the analysis scripts (R/Python) in a public repository (OSF, GitHub + Zenodo DOI).
- Report reliability for subjective coding (two coders, inter-rater agreement) so the prevalence claims are not one reader's judgment.
- Make figures reproducible — every prevalence/forest exhibit regenerates from the deposited data and script.
Checklist
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
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Perspectives-on-Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility/SKILL.md
1---2name: ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility3description: Use when meeting open-science and reproducibility obligations for a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) piece — repository deposit for any original data, a documented and ideally preregistered systematic protocol for meta-science, and exemplary disclosure (PoPS is an open-science leader). Builds the transparency layer; it does not draft the synthesis (ppsych-organizing-framework) or run the submission preflight (ppsych-submission).4---5
6
7# Transparency & Reproducibility (ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility)
8
9## When to trigger
10
11- The piece reports or reuses any original data and you must make it available
12- The piece is **meta-science** and its systematic coverage/coding must be reproducible
13- You are deciding what to preregister, deposit, and disclose for a field-shaping reform piece
14- You want the open-science layer to be drafted from live identifiers, not promised at acceptance
15
16## Why this matters more at PoPS than almost anywhere
17
18PoPS 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.
19
20## What the obligation bites on (by piece type)
21
22| Piece type | Where transparency applies |
23|------------|---------------------------|
24| **Integrative review / theoretical statement** | the **systematic coverage account** (search strategy, inclusion/exclusion from `ppsych-literature-synthesis`); no new data of its own |
25| **Meta-science / methodology** | the **systematic protocol** — sampling frame, coding scheme, double-coding/reliability, and the **data + code** behind every prevalence figure or statistic |
26| **Meta-analysis with a superordinate message** | full meta-analytic dataset, effect-size extraction, and analysis code, reproducibly deposited |
27| **Any piece including original data** | the data must be in a **repository**; the cover letter confirms ethical data collection (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准) |
28
29## PoPS / SAGE policy facts (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准 — re-confirm on the author pages)
30
31- **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).
32- **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).
33- **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).
34- **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).
35
36## Building the reproducible meta-science protocol
37
38For a reform/meta-science piece, the protocol *is* the design — make it auditable:
39
401. **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.
412. **Deposit** the coded dataset, the coding manual, and the analysis scripts (R/Python) in a public repository (OSF, GitHub + Zenodo DOI).
423. **Report reliability** for subjective coding (two coders, inter-rater agreement) so the prevalence claims are not one reader's judgment.
434. **Make figures reproducible** — every prevalence/forest exhibit regenerates from the deposited data and script.
44
45## Checklist
46
47- [ ] Piece type identified; the right transparency obligation selected (coverage account vs. data+code)
48- [ ] Any original data deposited in a repository and cited; ethical-collection confirmation in the cover letter
49- [ ] Meta-science: protocol preregistered (frame + inclusion + coding); registration link reported
50- [ ] Meta-science / meta-analysis: dataset, coding manual, and analysis code deposited (OSF/Zenodo DOI)
51- [ ] Inter-rater reliability reported for subjective coding
52- [ ] Every prevalence/forest figure regenerates from deposited data + script
53- [ ] Deposits mapped to TOP-level expectations; Open-Practice badge eligibility checked (待核实 current set)
54- [ ] Transparency statements drafted from live identifiers, not promises
55- [ ] AI-use and conflict-of-interest disclosures prepared per current policy
56
57## Anti-patterns
58
59- A reform/transparency argument that is itself unreproducible (fatal credibility loss at PoPS)
60- "Data available upon request" instead of a repository deposit when original data are included
61- A meta-science prevalence figure with an undisclosed, unpreregistered sampling frame
62- One-coder subjective extraction presented as fact, with no reliability statistic
63- Promising open data/code at acceptance instead of depositing and citing it at submission
64- Asserting the current badge set, TOP level, or data policy from memory rather than the live SAGE/APS pages
65
66## Output format
67
68```text
69【Piece type】review/theory / meta-science / meta-analysis / includes-original-data
70【Coverage account】search + inclusion/exclusion documented (review/theory)? Y/N · N/A
71【Data deposit】original data in repository + cited; ethical-collection confirmed in cover letter? Y/N · N/A
72【Preregistration】meta-science protocol preregistered; link reported? Y/N · N/A
73【Code/materials】coding manual + analysis scripts deposited (DOI)? Y/N · N/A
74【Reliability】inter-rater agreement reported for subjective coding? Y/N · N/A
75【Reproducible figures】prevalence/forest exhibits regenerate from deposit? Y/N · N/A
76【Policy re-confirm】badges / TOP level / data policy checked on SAGE/APS pages? Y/N · 待核实
77【Next step】→ ppsych-editor-strategy → ppsych-submission
78```
79
80---
81
82**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Perspectives-on-Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain