By name: jpsp-open-science-and-transparency description: Use when meeting the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP) transparency requirements — TOP Guidelines at Level 2, JARS reporting, data/code/materials disclosure to a trusted repository, preregistration status, and Registered Reports. Guides compliance; it does not create data or post your files for you.
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)
- 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).
- 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.
- Preregistration disclosure. State whether or not any analyses were preregistered; mark registered vs. exploratory analyses; share the (masked) preregistration link.
- 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. - Data availability. APA expects data to remain available throughout review and for at least 5 years after publication.
- 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— OSF/ResearchBox/Dataverse, JARS, preregistration tools../../resources/official-source-map.md— TOP Level 2, JARS, data-availability and badges policy