From annual-review-of-psychology-skills
Documents literature search and makes embedded meta-analyses reproducible for ARPsych reviews. Includes PRISMA flow, coding protocols, effect-size datasets, and analysis code.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/annual-review-of-psychology-skills:arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibilityThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The review documents a systematic search and you must report it reproducibly
A pure narrative review has no dataset of its own, so the transparency obligation does not look like a primary-paper replication package. It bites on two things:
arpsych-literature-synthesis, written up so a reader could reproduce the coverage.Post-replication-crisis, ARPsych readers expect both, and a review that asserts "the literature shows…" with no documented basis reads as less authoritative.
Then you have run original analysis and must meet quantitative-synthesis standards:
| Requirement | What to provide |
|---|---|
| PRISMA-style flow | search → screening → included, with counts at each step |
| Coding protocol | how effects were extracted/coded; inter-coder reliability |
| Effect-size dataset | the extracted effects + moderators, deposited |
| Analysis code | scripts reproducing the pooled estimates and plots |
| Heterogeneity + bias | I², moderators, funnel/publication-bias diagnostics |
| Preregistration (if applicable) | protocol/PROSPERO registration where the synthesis was prospective |
Deposit data and code in a public repository (e.g., OSF) and cite the DOI in the review.
Annual Reviews requires authors to disclose potential sources of bias / conflicts of interest and to state funding; prepare these per the author pages. AI tools are not authors. Re-confirm the exact disclosure format on the live Annual Reviews pages.
【Review type】narrative | embedded-meta-analysis
【Search transparency】protocol documented reproducibly? Y/N
【If meta-analysis】PRISMA flow + coding + reliability? Y/N
【Open materials】effect data + code deposited (OSF DOI)? Y/N | N/A
【Heterogeneity / bias】I² + funnel/pub-bias reported? Y/N | N/A
【Declarations】COI / bias disclosure + funding prepared; AI not author? Y/N
【Next step】→ arpsych-editor-strategy (align scope/timeline with the Editor)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin annual-review-of-psychology-skillsHelps meet transparency and reproducibility obligations for a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) piece, including data deposit, protocol preregistration, and disclosure.
Runs the final delivery preflight for a commissioned ARPsych review, checking disclosures, reference completeness, figure permissions, length, and transparency of embedded meta-analyses.
Makes systematic reviews for RER auditable and re-runnable by enforcing PRISMA/MARS reporting, coding reliability quantification, and open materials sharing.