agentsclimarketplace

Arpsych transparency and reproducibility

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Annual-Review-of-Psychology-Skills/skills/arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility

Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. | 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包,从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程,助你快速发论文。

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use when documenting the literature search and making any embedded meta-analysis reproducible for an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review. Covers search transparency, meta-analytic rigor, and open materials; it does not run the narrative search (arpsych-literature-synthesis) or design exhibits (arpsych-tables-figures).

SKILL.md

4.6 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

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

When to trigger

  • The review documents a systematic search and you must report it reproducibly
  • The review embeds a meta-analysis or any new quantitative synthesis
  • You are deciding what to deposit (search log, coding sheet, effect-size data, code)
  • A reader or the Committee should be able to verify how the literature was selected

A review reports no new data — so transparency bites elsewhere

A pure narrative review has no dataset of its own, so the transparency obligation does not look like a primary-paper replication package. It bites on two things:

  1. How the literature was found and selected — the search protocol from arpsych-literature-synthesis, written up so a reader could reproduce the coverage.
  2. Any quantitative synthesis the review itself contributes — if you compute pooled effects, that is original analysis, and it must be reproducible (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).

Post-replication-crisis, ARPsych readers expect both, and a review that asserts "the literature shows…" with no documented basis reads as less authoritative.

If the review is narrative (no meta-analysis)

  • Report the search: databases, terms, date range, inclusion/exclusion, and the stopping rule — a short, near-PRISMA-style account suffices.
  • State selection logic: why these studies and not others (especially when the field is large and you are selective).
  • Be explicit about replication status of contested effects (this is part of transparency, not just balance).

If the review embeds a meta-analysis

Then you have run original analysis and must meet quantitative-synthesis standards:

RequirementWhat to provide
PRISMA-style flowsearch → screening → included, with counts at each step
Coding protocolhow effects were extracted/coded; inter-coder reliability
Effect-size datasetthe extracted effects + moderators, deposited
Analysis codescripts reproducing the pooled estimates and plots
Heterogeneity + biasI², moderators, funnel/publication-bias diagnostics
Preregistration (if applicable)protocol/PROSPERO registration where the synthesis was prospective

Deposit data and code in a public repository (e.g., OSF) and cite the DOI in the review.

Required declarations (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准)

Annual Reviews requires authors to disclose potential sources of bias / conflicts of interest and to state funding; prepare these per the author pages. AI tools are not authors. Re-confirm the exact disclosure format on the live Annual Reviews pages.

Checklist

  • Search protocol written up reproducibly (databases, terms, dates, in/out, stopping rule)
  • Selection logic stated where coverage is selective
  • Replication status of contested effects made explicit
  • If meta-analytic: PRISMA-style flow with counts
  • If meta-analytic: coding protocol + inter-coder reliability reported
  • If meta-analytic: effect-size data + analysis code deposited (OSF DOI cited)
  • If meta-analytic: heterogeneity and publication-bias diagnostics reported
  • COI / potential-bias disclosure + funding prepared; AI not listed as author

Anti-patterns

  • "The literature shows…" with no documented search behind the claim
  • Reporting pooled effects with no deposited data or code (irreproducible meta-analysis)
  • A meta-analysis with no heterogeneity or publication-bias assessment
  • Treating a review's transparency like a primary-paper replication package (wrong object)
  • Omitting the conflict-of-interest / potential-bias disclosure Annual Reviews requires
  • Listing an AI tool as an author or hiding its use where disclosure is required

Output format

【Review type】narrative | embedded-meta-analysis
【Search transparency】protocol documented reproducibly? Y/N
【If meta-analysis】PRISMA flow + coding + reliability? Y/N
【Open materials】effect data + code deposited (OSF DOI)? Y/N | N/A
【Heterogeneity / bias】I² + funnel/pub-bias reported? Y/N | N/A
【Declarations】COI / bias disclosure + funding prepared; AI not author? Y/N
【Next step】→ arpsych-editor-strategy (align scope/timeline with the Editor)

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.