| name | joap-open-science-and-transparency |
| description | Use when meeting the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP) open-science requirements. JAP holds empirical work (including meta-analyses) to the TOP framework — data, materials, and code availability with persistent identifiers, a data-transparency / data-availability statement, and preregistration weighed in evaluation. Prepares compliance; it does not waive requirements. |
Open Science & Transparency (joap-open-science-and-transparency)
JAP is a TOP-aligned APA journal. Empirical submissions (including meta-analyses) are held to the
Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) standards: share data, materials, and analysis code
with persistent identifiers, provide a data-availability / transparency statement, and report
preregistration where applicable — with transparency weighed in evaluation. Prepare this early, not
at acceptance. Verify the current TOP level and exact statement wording on the official APA page
(待核实).
When to trigger
- Building the data/materials/code deposits and the data-availability statement
- Deciding whether (and how) to claim an exemption from sharing
- Linking a preregistration and reporting its status
- A reviewer or editor flagged transparency, data access, or reproducibility
What is expected (verify current wording on the official page)
- Data, materials, and code availability. Make the dataset, study materials (scales, manipulations,
instructions), and analysis scripts available, or state precisely why not. Sensitive personnel /
organizational data often need a documented exemption with an access path.
- Data-transparency / data-availability statement. A statement describing what data exist, where
they live, how they can be accessed, and whether any portion has appeared in other papers (a
prior-use / overlapping-data disclosure is expected when datasets are reused across articles).
- Persistent identifiers (DOIs). Provide DOIs for shared data/materials/code (OSF, ICPSR,
Dataverse, Zenodo) — not transient personal links.
- Preregistration. Report preregistration honestly and link it (anonymized for masked review); its
presence and quality are weighed, and Registered Reports may be available (confirm on the official
page; 待核实).
Build-it-right checklist
Exemptions (do them honestly)
- Personnel and organizational data are often legally or contractually constrained. State exactly
what is withheld, why (confidentiality, proprietary, IRB), and how others can access or
approximate it (synthetic/aggregated data, application path, full code release). Unjustified opacity
counts against the paper.
Data-availability statement — worked draft (illustrative)
A model statement for the servant-leadership package; confirm the exact required headings against the
journal's current TOP/author requirements.
Data availability: Team- and individual-level data for the field study and
trial-level data for the experiment are available at OSF
(DOI 10.XXXX/osf.io/abcde), with a codebook.
Materials: All scales, the leadership manipulation, and instructions are
deposited (DOI 10.XXXX/osf.io/fghij).
Code: Mplus/R scripts reproduce all reported values in a fresh session; a run
log is included (DOI 10.XXXX/osf.io/klmno).
Preregistration: The experiment was preregistered (osf.io/pqrst) before data
collection; one field-study serial-mediation analysis is reported as exploratory.
Prior use: The field dataset has not been used in any other manuscript.
(If applicable, list overlapping papers and the constructs each uses.)
Exemptions: None. (If applicable: what is withheld, why, and the access path.)
Transparency-readiness decision table
| Situation | Editorial read | What to deposit / state |
|---|
| Fully shareable data + materials + code | expected baseline | DOIs for data, materials, code + run log |
| Proprietary organizational data | exemption considered if justified | synthetic/aggregated data + access path + full code |
| Archival / third-party dataset | acceptable with provenance | link source, share derivation scripts, document version |
| Dataset reused across papers | requires disclosure | state overlap, which constructs each paper uses |
| "Available on request" | reads as non-compliant | replace with a persistent DOI before submission |
Reviewer / editor pushback and the venue fix
- "No DOI, just a personal link" → swap every transient link for a persistent identifier before the
masked submission goes out.
- "Statement says open but the repo is empty" → deposit first; draft the statement from the live DOIs.
- "Is this the same data as your other paper?" → add a prior-use/overlap disclosure; JAP expects it.
- "Preregistration deviates from the analysis" → add a deviations note; relabel post hoc work exploratory.
- "OSF page reveals author identity" → use the anonymized view link for masked review.
Anti-patterns
- Treating data/materials/code sharing as optional or "available on request"
- Omitting the data-availability/transparency statement or a required prior-use disclosure
- Personal/transient links instead of DOIs
- Claiming an exemption without a justification or access path
- Identifying author info in repository links during masked review
Output format
【Data】deposited + DOI + codebook (or justified exemption)? [Y/N]
【Materials】deposited + DOI? [Y/N]
【Code】deposited + fresh-session reproducible? [Y/N]
【Transparency statement】drafted per current TOP wording (待核实)? [Y/N]
【Prior-use disclosure】dataset overlap stated? [Y/N/NA]
【Preregistration】linked (anonymized) + consistent with reporting? [Y/N/NA]
【Next】joap-review-process
Supplementary resources
