Psci Open Science And Transparency

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

This is the skill that most distinguishes a Psychological Science submission. Since 1 January 2024 the journal has required open data and materials and a graded Research Transparency Statement — the badge era is over, and "limits on transparency will be a factor in editorial decisions." Prepare this early, not at acceptance.

When to trigger

• Building the data/materials deposits and the Research Transparency Statement
• Deciding whether (and how) to claim an exemption from sharing
• Linking preregistration and reporting its status
• A reviewer or editor flagged transparency or reproducibility

What is required (verify current wording on the official page)

1. Open data and materials. Make data, analysis scripts, and study materials openly available, with case-by-case exemptions that must be justified (e.g., legal, ethical, or confidentiality constraints). It is a requirement, not a bonus.
2. Research Transparency Statement. A required separate section placed between the Introduction and the Methods for empirical manuscripts. It reports the availability of data, analysis scripts, materials, and preregistrations, is shared with editors and reviewers, and is evaluated — constraints must be explained.
3. Persistent identifiers (DOIs). Provide DOIs for all shared data and materials (OSF, Dataverse, Zenodo, ICPSR, etc.) — not transient personal links.
4. Preregistration. Its presence and quality are factored into editorial decisions; report preregistration honestly and link it (anonymized for initial submission).

Build-it-right checklist

• Data deposited with a DOI; a data dictionary/codebook included
• Analysis scripts deposited; results regenerate in a fresh session
• Materials (stimuli, instruments, instructions) deposited with a DOI
• Preregistration linked (anonymized for review); confirmatory vs. exploratory consistent with it
• Research Transparency Statement drafted and placed between Intro and Methods
• Any exemption clearly justified (what cannot be shared, why, and what is shared instead)
• Shared links anonymized for initial (masked) submission

Exemptions (do them honestly)

• If data cannot be fully shared (sensitive populations, third-party/proprietary data, IRB limits), state exactly what is withheld, why, and how others can access or approximate it (application path, synthetic data, code release). Unjustified opacity counts against the paper.

Research Transparency Statement — worked draft (illustrative)

A model statement for the two-study attention package, placed verbatim between Introduction and Methods. Confirm the exact required headings against the journal's current submission guidelines.

Research Transparency Statement
Data:        All trial-level data for Studies 1–2 are available at
             OSF (DOI 10.XXXX/osf.io/abcde), with a codebook.
Materials:   Stimuli, instructions, and the induction script are deposited
             (DOI 10.XXXX/osf.io/fghij).
Analysis:    Analysis scripts (R) reproduce all reported values in a fresh
             session; a run log is included (DOI 10.XXXX/osf.io/klmno).
Preregistration: Study 1 (aspredicted.org/XXXX) and Study 2
             (osf.io/pqrst) were preregistered before data collection;
             one Study-1 anxiety analysis is reported as exploratory.
Exemptions:  None. (If applicable: state what is withheld, why, and the
             access path.)

Transparency-readiness decision table

Reviewer / editor pushback and the venue fix

• "No DOI, just a Dropbox link" → swap every transient link for a persistent identifier (OSF, Dataverse, Zenodo) before the masked submission goes out.
• "Statement says open but the repo is empty" → deposit first, draft the statement from the live DOIs.
• "Preregistration deviates from the analysis and you didn't flag it" → add a deviations subsection; label the post hoc analysis exploratory; keep confirmatory/exploratory consistent end to end.
• "OSF page reveals author identity during masked review" → use the anonymized view link.

Anti-patterns

• Treating open data/materials as optional or "available on request"
• Omitting or burying the Research Transparency Statement
• Personal/transient links instead of DOIs
• Claiming an exemption without a justification
• Identifying author info in OSF/repository links during masked review

Output format

【Open data】deposited + DOI + data dictionary? [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]
【Transparency Statement】drafted + placed between Intro and Methods? [Y/N]
【Exemptions】justified (what/why/alternative)? [Y/N/NA]
【Next】psci-review-process

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — OSF, Dataverse, Zenodo, preregistration templates, DOIs
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — post-2024 open-science requirements and the Transparency Statement

Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-open-science-and-transparency/SKILL.md