agentsclimarketplace

Psci data analysis

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/psci-data-analysis

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.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill psci-data-analysis

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

SKILL.md

7.2 KB, ~1.6k tokens by cl100k_base, 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Confirmatory vs. exploratory. Label preregistered confirmatory analyses separately from exploratory ones; do not present exploratory results as predicted (no HARKing).
  4. Appropriate inference. Justify the model; report assumptions/diagnostics; correct for multiple comparisons when testing many outcomes; consider robust or Bayesian alternatives where apt.
  5. 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 pushbackWhat it signals herePsychological Science fix
"p = .048 — too close to the line, and the CI nearly spans zero"post-credibility-revolution distrust of just-significant single testsreport the CI prominently, add the Study 2 replication, lead with the pooled estimate
"Which exclusions were preregistered?"suspicion of undisclosed forking pathsgive the disclosure table: rule, count, preregistered vs. post hoc, and the estimate with vs. without
"Means hide the distribution"bar-of-means aesthetic distrustedrecompute and show effect size + CI; route exhibit to psci-tables-figures
"Is this confirmatory?"HARKing concernpoint to the preregistration timestamp; relabel anything generated after data as exploratory
"Reviewer 2 could not rerun your code"reproducibility gateship 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) or benjamini_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 exact suggest_function for each.
  • Exhibits: etable / did_summary_to_latex from 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

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. 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.