Jedpsych open science and transparency

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

The Journal of Educational Psychology follows APA's transparency-and-openness framework. Manuscripts include a Transparency and Openness subsection that states whether data, materials, and analysis code are deposited in trusted repositories with persistent identifiers — or states that they are unavailable (with reasons). Reporting follows JARS; preregistration is encouraged but not mandatory (disclose status and link); and Open Science Badges (Open Data, Open Materials, Preregistered) are available with a signed disclosure form (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Prepare this early — and keep every shared link anonymized for masked review.

When to trigger

• Building data/materials/code deposits and the Transparency and Openness subsection
• Deciding whether (and how) to claim that data cannot be shared
• Disclosing and linking a preregistration / analysis plan
• Deciding whether to apply for Open Science Badges
• A reviewer or editor flagged transparency, reporting standards, or reproducibility

What JEP expects (verify current wording on the official page)

1. Transparency and Openness subsection. State, for data, materials, and analysis code, whether each is openly available, available under restriction, or unavailable — and where (repository + persistent identifier / DOI). If something is not shared, say so and why.
2. JARS reporting standards. Follow the APA Journal Article Reporting Standards for your design (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods), and JARS-REC for race, ethnicity, and culture reporting. Meta-analyses follow the meta-analysis reporting standards.
3. Preregistration (encouraged). Disclose whether the study was preregistered and provide the registry link; report deviations from the plan. Preregistration is weighed favorably but is not required.
4. Persistent identifiers. Use trusted repositories (OSF, ICPSR, Dataverse, Zenodo) with DOIs — not transient personal links.
5. Open Science Badges. Optionally earn Open Data, Open Materials, and Preregistered badges; each requires a signed badge disclosure form submitted as supplemental material.
6. Anonymize for masked review. Repository and preregistration links must not reveal author identity (use anonymized views); strip identifying metadata.

Build-it-right checklist

• Data deposited with a DOI (or restricted-access statement + reason); codebook included
• Analysis code deposited; results regenerate in a fresh session
• Materials (instruments, intervention protocol, stimuli) deposited with a DOI (or license-limited statement)
• Transparency and Openness subsection drafted covering data, materials, and code availability
• Preregistration disclosed and linked (anonymized); deviations reported
• JARS / JARS-REC checklist walked for your design; participant/context reporting complete
• Badge disclosure form signed if applying for Open Science Badges
• Shared links anonymized for masked submission; identifying metadata stripped

Restricted data (educational settings — do it honestly)

• Student data are frequently protected (FERPA, IRB, district agreements). If data cannot be fully shared, state exactly what is withheld, why, and how others can access or approximate it (application path, de-identified/synthetic data, secure enclave, code release). Document this in the subsection; unjustified opacity counts against the paper.

Transparency and Openness subsection — worked draft (illustrative)

A model statement for the cluster-randomized reading trial. Confirm the exact required headings/wording against the journal's current submission guidelines.

Transparency and Openness
Data:        De-identified student-level data for the trial are available
             at OSF (DOI 10.XXXX/osf.io/abcde) with a codebook; raw
             identifiable data are governed by the district agreement and
             available via application (path described).
Materials:   The intervention protocol, fidelity rubric, and comprehension
             measures (license permitting) are deposited (DOI 10.XXXX/osf.io/fghij).
Analysis:    Analysis code (R, lme4 / lavaan) reproduces all reported values
             in a fresh session; a run log is included (DOI 10.XXXX/osf.io/klmno).
Preregistration: The design, hypotheses, and analysis plan were preregistered
             before data collection (osf.io/pqrst); one ATI analysis is
             reported as exploratory. Reporting follows JARS (and JARS-REC).

Transparency-readiness decision table

Situation	Editorial read	What to deposit / state
Fully shareable de-identified data + materials	strong baseline	DOIs for data, materials, code + run log; consider badges
Protected student records (FERPA/IRB/district)	acceptable if justified	de-identified/synthetic data + gated access path; share code
Proprietary/licensed instrument	partial	share what license allows; cite source; share scoring code
Secondary / third-party dataset	acceptable with provenance	link source, share derivation code, document version
"Available on request"	reads as weak	replace with a persistent DOI or a documented access path

Reviewer / editor pushback and the venue fix

• "No DOI, just a personal link" → swap transient links for persistent identifiers before the masked submission goes out.
• "Subsection says available but the repo is empty" → deposit first, draft the subsection from live DOIs.
• "Preregistration deviates and you didn't flag it" → add a deviations note; relabel post hoc as exploratory; keep confirmatory/exploratory consistent end to end.
• "Repository page reveals author identity" → use anonymized views for masked review.
• "JARS participant/context reporting incomplete" → complete the JARS / JARS-REC items for your design.

Anti-patterns

• Omitting or burying the Transparency and Openness subsection
• Personal/transient links instead of persistent identifiers
• Treating restricted student data as a reason to share nothing (share code + access path)
• Claiming a preregistration that does not match the analyses, or hiding deviations
• Identifying author info in repository/preregistration links during masked review

Output format

【Data】deposited + DOI + codebook (or justified restriction)? [Y/N]
【Materials】deposited + DOI (or license statement)? [Y/N]
【Analysis code】deposited + fresh-session reproducible? [Y/N]
【Transparency subsection】drafted covering data/materials/code? [Y/N]
【Preregistration】disclosed + linked (anonymized) + deviations noted? [Y/N/NA]
【JARS / JARS-REC】walked for this design? [Y/N]
【Anonymized】links + metadata for masked review? [Y/N]
【Next】jedpsych-review-process

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — OSF, ICPSR, Dataverse, Zenodo, JARS checklists, preregistration templates, DOIs
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — Transparency and Openness, JARS, preregistration, and Open Science Badge policy