Use when meeting Psychological Science's open-science requirements. For submissions on or after 1 January 2024 the journal requires open data and materials (case-by-case exemptions), a Research Transparency Statement placed between the Introduction and Methods, persistent identifiers for shared content, and treats transparency limits and preregistration quality as factors in editorial decisions. Prepares compliance; it does not waive requirements.
Scanned 6/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill psci-open-science-and-transparency --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Psci Open Science And Transparency?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-psci-open-science-and-transparency)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: psci-open-science-and-transparency
description: Use when meeting Psychological Science's open-science requirements. For submissions on or after 1 January 2024 the journal requires open data and materials (case-by-case exemptions), a Research Transparency Statement placed between the Introduction and Methods, persistent identifiers for shared content, and treats transparency limits and preregistration quality as factors in editorial decisions. Prepares compliance; it does not waive requirements.
---
# 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.
## 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`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — OSF, Dataverse, Zenodo, preregistration templates, DOIs
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — post-2024 open-science requirements and the Transparency Statement
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!