Psci data analysis
Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-data-analysis
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。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill psci-data-analysisAssembled 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 analyzing and reporting results for a Psychological Science manuscript. The journal requires effect sizes with confidence intervals, full disclosure of exclusions/conditions/measures, and a clear confirmatory/exploratory split, with analysis scripts and data shared. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.
SKILL.md
7.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Data Analysis (psci-data-analysis)
Psychological Science holds analyses to high credibility standards: effect sizes with confidence intervals for major results, full disclosure of how the data were handled, and a clean confirmatory vs. exploratory separation. Analysis scripts and data are shared and can be checked.
When to trigger
- Running and reporting the main and supporting analyses
- A reviewer asked for effect sizes, intervals, robustness, or disclosure
- Reconciling preregistered analyses with exploratory follow-ups
- Preparing analysis scripts and a data dictionary for deposit
Reporting norms Psychological Science expects
- Effect sizes + uncertainty. Report a standardized or unstandardized effect size and a measure of uncertainty (e.g., confidence intervals) for major results — not just p-values and stars.
- Full disclosure (the "21-word-solution" spirit). Report how sample size was determined, all data exclusions (and reasons), all manipulations/conditions, and all measures. Total excluded observations must be stated.
- Confirmatory vs. exploratory. Label preregistered confirmatory analyses separately from exploratory ones; do not present exploratory results as predicted (no HARKing).
- Appropriate inference. Justify the model; report assumptions/diagnostics; correct for multiple comparisons when testing many outcomes; consider robust or Bayesian alternatives where apt.
- Replicability of the analysis. Provide analysis scripts and a data dictionary; results should
regenerate from the shared data in a fresh session (see
psci-open-science-and-transparency).
Robustness
- Show the result survives reasonable alternative specifications and exclusion choices; report sensitivity rather than a single fragile model. For small samples, be candid about uncertainty.
Worked micro-example (illustrative numbers)
A preregistered two-study package on selective attention. Study 1 (N = 240, between-subjects) tests whether a brief mindfulness induction reduces attentional capture by emotional distractors. The confirmatory analysis is a single preregistered contrast on reaction-time cost.
Confirmatory (preregistered) — Study 1
Effect: induction vs. control on capture cost (ms)
d = 0.34, 95% CI [0.08, 0.59], t(238) = 2.66, p = .008
Sensitivity: holds with/without the 6 preregistered RT-outlier exclusions
(d shifts 0.34 → 0.31), and under log-RT (d = 0.33)
Exploratory (labeled) — Study 1
Trait-anxiety × condition interaction surfaced post hoc; reported as
exploratory, flagged for confirmation in Study 2's preregistration
Confirmatory (preregistered) — Study 2 (N = 300, direct + extension)
Replicates direct effect (d = 0.29, 95% CI [0.06, 0.51]) and
preregisters the anxiety moderation that was exploratory in Study 1
Why this passes Psychological Science scrutiny: every confirmatory number carries an effect size and a CI; the anxiety interaction is honestly demoted to exploratory and then promoted to confirmatory only after preregistration in Study 2; the sensitivity line pre-empts the "fragile-to-exclusions" reviewer.
Analysis-stage reviewer pushback and the venue fix
| Reviewer pushback | What it signals here | Psychological Science fix |
|---|---|---|
| "p = .048 — too close to the line, and the CI nearly spans zero" | post-credibility-revolution distrust of just-significant single tests | report the CI prominently, add the Study 2 replication, lead with the pooled estimate |
| "Which exclusions were preregistered?" | suspicion of undisclosed forking paths | give the disclosure table: rule, count, preregistered vs. post hoc, and the estimate with vs. without |
| "Means hide the distribution" | bar-of-means aesthetic distrusted | recompute and show effect size + CI; route exhibit to psci-tables-figures |
| "Is this confirmatory?" | HARKing concern | point to the preregistration timestamp; relabel anything generated after data as exploratory |
| "Reviewer 2 could not rerun your code" | reproducibility gate | ship a fresh-session run log; see psci-open-science-and-transparency |
Calibration anchors
- One adequately powered effect with a tight CI beats three stars on an underpowered model — the journal's cautionary history is flashy-but-fragile single studies.
- Prefer estimation language ("the induction reduced capture cost by ~0.3 SD, 95% CI [...]") to dichotomous "significant/not." Bare p-value sentences read as pre-reform here.
- When N is modest, state the smallest effect the design could detect rather than implying precision you do not have; hedge magnitude claims to what the interval supports.
Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)
Run the battery, don't just enumerate it. Full map:
execution-with-mcp. Psychological Science is short-format experimental psychology with strong open-science norms; preregister, run randomization inference, and report effect sizes with family-wise corrections.
- Many outcomes / specifications:
romano_wolf(step-down FWER) orbenjamini_hochberg— report the adjusted threshold. - OVB sensitivity:
oster_delta/sensemakr. - Inference:
wild_cluster_bootstrap(few clusters),twoway_cluster/conley; multilevel data → cluster at the right level. - Re-fit off one handle:
audit_result(result_id)lists the missing checks and the exactsuggest_functionfor each. - Exhibits:
etable/did_summary_to_latexfrom the handle — no retyped numbers.
Keep the decisive checks in the body and the exhaustive battery in the supplement. See the executed chain in the JF execution walkthrough.
Anti-patterns
- p-values and stars with no effect size or confidence interval
- Selectively reporting conditions, measures, or exclusions (undisclosed flexibility)
- HARKing exploratory findings into confirmatory hypotheses
- Optional-stopping / garden-of-forking-paths analyses presented as planned
- Analysis code that does not reproduce the reported numbers
Output format
【Main result】effect size + confidence interval + meaning
【Disclosure】N-determination + all exclusions + all conditions + all measures reported? [Y/N]
【Confirmatory vs exploratory】clearly separated? [Y/N]
【Inference】assumptions/diagnostics, MHT handled?
【Reproducible】scripts + data dictionary + fresh-session check? [Y/N]
【Next】psci-tables-figures
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md—effectsize,emmeans,metafor, JASP/jamovi, reproducible-report tooling../../resources/official-source-map.md— statistical and disclosure requirements