| name | devpsych-open-science-and-transparency |
| description | Use when meeting Developmental Psychology's (APA) open-science and transparency expectations under the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines — data and materials sharing with persistent identifiers, preregistration, sample-size justification, and JARS-consistent disclosure — with the ethical handling of data from minors and vulnerable populations. Prepares compliance; it does not waive requirements. |
Open Science & Transparency (devpsych-open-science-and-transparency)
Developmental Psychology has adopted the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines, so a
submission is judged partly on disclosure, data/materials availability, and preregistration. The
developmental twist is that much data come from minors and vulnerable populations, so "share
everything" is tempered by consent scope, confidentiality, and re-identification risk — handled as a
justified, documented constraint, not silent opacity. Build this early, not at acceptance.
When to trigger
- Building data/materials deposits and the data-availability statement
- Deciding whether and how to share data collected from children/vulnerable groups (and what to withhold)
- Linking a preregistration and reporting its status under JARS
- A reviewer or editor flagged transparency, reproducibility, or sample-size justification
What TOP-style transparency asks (verify current wording on the official page)
- Data and materials availability. Make data, analysis scripts, and materials available where
ethically possible, with a data-availability statement; constraints (consent scope, minors'
confidentiality, IRB limits) must be stated and justified, with an access path where feasible.
- Persistent identifiers (DOIs). Use repositories that mint DOIs (OSF, ICPSR, Databrary, Dataverse,
Zenodo) — not transient personal links. Databrary is purpose-built for sharing developmental video
and identifiable data under permission.
- Preregistration. Preregister confirmatory developmental hypotheses and the analysis plan; report
the status honestly and keep confirmatory/exploratory consistent end to end (JARS).
- Sample-size justification. Provide an explicit basis for N (power for the change parameter,
precision, or a decision rule) — required reporting, not a nicety (see
devpsych-study-design).
- JARS disclosure. All exclusions, conditions, measures, and how sample size was determined.
Build-it-right checklist
Sharing data from minors — do it honestly
- If full open data are not ethical (consent did not cover broad sharing, video is identifiable, IRB
restricts redistribution), state what is restricted, why, and how others can access or
approximate it — restricted-access archives (ICPSR, Databrary), de-identified extracts, synthetic data,
or code release. Unjustified opacity counts against the paper; a documented constraint does not.
Data-availability statement — worked draft (illustrative)
For the three-wave effortful-control package; confirm current required wording on the official page.
Data availability: De-identified trial-level data and analysis scripts for
all three waves are openly available at OSF (DOI 10.XXXX/osf.io/abcde),
with a codebook. Identifiable observational video is shared under
permission via Databrary (DOI 10.XXXX/...), consistent with consent and IRB.
Materials: Task scripts and the effortful-control coding manual are deposited
(DOI 10.XXXX/osf.io/fghij).
Preregistration: Hypotheses, the invariance-test plan, and the growth model
were preregistered before wave-3 analysis (osf.io/pqrst).
Constraints: Raw video cannot be openly posted (identifiability, minors);
access is available to authorized researchers via Databrary.
Transparency-readiness decision table
| Situation | Editorial read | What to deposit / state |
|---|
| De-identified tabular data + scripts | expected baseline | DOIs for data, materials, scripts + run log |
| Identifiable child video/audio | constraint accepted if justified | permission-based archive (Databrary) + access path |
| Consent did not cover broad sharing | partial sharing | de-identified extract + restricted-access path; say so |
| Secondary/large panel (NICHD, ECLS) | acceptable with provenance | cite source, version; share derivation scripts |
| "Available on request" | reads as non-compliant | replace with a persistent DOI / restricted archive |
Reviewer / editor pushback and the venue fix
- "No DOI, just a personal link" → swap every transient link for a persistent identifier or a restricted
archive before the masked submission.
- "Statement says open but the repo is empty" → deposit first, draft the statement from live DOIs.
- "How can children's video be shared?" → use Databrary/permission-based access; state the path, do not
post identifiable material openly.
- "No sample-size justification" → add the power/precision rationale for the change parameter.
Anti-patterns
- Treating data/materials sharing as optional or "available on request"
- Posting identifiable data from minors openly (a confidentiality breach), or refusing all sharing with
no justification
- Personal/transient links instead of DOIs / restricted archives
- Omitting the sample-size justification
- Identifying author info in OSF/Databrary links during masked review
Output format
【Open data】deposited + DOI + data dictionary (or justified restriction)? [Y/N]
【Open materials】deposited + DOI? [Y/N]
【Analysis scripts】deposited + fresh-session reproducible? [Y/N]
【Preregistration】linked (anonymized) + consistent with reporting? [Y/N/NA]
【Data-availability statement】drafted (what is shared / restricted / why)? [Y/N]
【Minors' data】handled per consent/IRB via permission-based access? [Y/N/NA]
【Sample-size justification】reported? [Y/N]
【Next】devpsych-review-process
Supplementary resources
