| name | jedpsych-open-science-and-transparency |
| description | Use when meeting the Journal of Educational Psychology's open-science requirements — the Transparency and Openness subsection stating data/materials/analysis-code availability with persistent identifiers, JARS-compliant reporting, preregistration disclosure (encouraged, not mandatory), and Open Science Badges. Prepares compliance for masked review; it does not waive requirements. |
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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Persistent identifiers. Use trusted repositories (OSF, ICPSR, Dataverse, Zenodo) with DOIs — not
transient personal links.
- Open Science Badges. Optionally earn Open Data, Open Materials, and Preregistered badges; each
requires a signed badge disclosure form submitted as supplemental material.
- Anonymize for masked review. Repository and preregistration links must not reveal author identity
(use anonymized views); strip identifying metadata.
Build-it-right checklist
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
