Reproducibility and Research Transparency

Reproducibility and Research Transparency

Applies to: all 6 EP Journals Group journals.
Effective: 1 May 2026, version 1.0.

This policy describes what we expect from authors, reviewers, and editors at Journal of Natural Science Research and Review regarding the transparency of research methods, the availability of data and code, and the reporting of methodological choices. The policy is informed by the TOP Guidelines, the FAIR Data Principles, and discipline-specific reporting standards.

What we expect from authors

We expect authors to be transparent about how the work in the manuscript was done. The specific form transparency takes depends on the methodology — quantitative empirical work has different transparency expectations than ethnographic or theoretical work — but the underlying principle is constant: a reader should be able to understand how the findings were generated and, where applicable, how to evaluate or extend them.

The following are the substantive expectations.

Data availability

For empirical research with quantitative or computational components, we expect the underlying data to be deposited in a recognized repository at the time of publication. Acceptable repositories include the Open Science Framework (OSF), Zenodo, Harvard Dataverse, Figshare, ICPSR, the UK Data Service, and discipline-specific repositories such as the Qualitative Data Repository at Syracuse for qualitative work, or GenBank for genetic sequence data.

A Data Availability Statement is required at the end of the manuscript, before the references. It must specify:

  • where the data are deposited (repository name and URL or DOI),
  • the access conditions (open, embargoed, restricted access on request),
  • if data cannot be shared, the specific reason (commercial third-party data, IRB-restricted participant data, ongoing analysis pre-publication of a follow-up study).

Personal websites, institutional intranets without DOIs, and password-protected supplementary material on the journal site are not acceptable as data sharing venues.

Where data cannot be shared due to legal or ethical constraints, the statement should describe the constraint and provide a documented procedure by which qualified researchers can request access. Where appropriate, authors may share a synthetic or anonymized version of the data along with the constraint statement.

Code availability

For articles that present computational analyses — statistical models, simulations, machine-learning training, text analysis, network analysis, agent-based models — we expect the analysis code to be deposited in a public repository (GitHub, GitLab, Zenodo, OSF) at publication, with sufficient documentation that another researcher can run the analysis from the underlying data. The code should be released under an open license (MIT, BSD, Apache 2.0, or similar) and tagged at the version corresponding to the published article. A Code Availability Statement accompanies articles with substantial computational components.

For complex computational pipelines, we encourage containerization (Docker, Singularity, Code Ocean) or environment management tools (renv for R, Conda for Python) to support long-term reproducibility.

Methodological transparency

We expect methods to be reported with enough specificity that another researcher in the field can evaluate the design and, where applicable, attempt replication. Where field-standard reporting checklists exist — STROBE for observational studies, CONSORT for randomized trials, PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, COREQ for qualitative research, ARRIVE for animal research, ENTREQ for qualitative evidence synthesis — we encourage authors to follow them and to upload the completed checklist as a supplementary file at submission.

For empirical research, the methods section should clearly specify the operational definition of each construct, the measurement instruments used, the sample selection and recruitment process, the sample size justification or power analysis, and any deviations from preregistered protocols.

Preregistration

We strongly encourage preregistration of hypotheses and analysis plans before data collection, particularly for confirmatory empirical research. Acceptable platforms include OSF Preregistration, AsPredicted.org, ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical research, the AEA Registry for experimental economics, and EGAP for political science field experiments.

Where a study has been preregistered, the manuscript should state this in the Methods section, provide the preregistration URL, and disclose any deviations from the preregistered protocol with a rationale.

We also accept Registered Reports — a publication format in which the introduction, hypotheses, and analysis plan are peer-reviewed and accepted in principle before data collection. Authors interested in this format should contact the editorial office before preparing a Stage 1 submission.

Materials

For studies using bespoke materials — survey instruments, interview schedules, coding manuals, experimental stimuli, software — we expect those materials to be deposited alongside the data and code, in a recognized repository, under an open license that permits academic reuse.

Negative and null findings

We welcome submissions that report null, negative, or inconclusive findings, provided the design and methodology are sound. Statistical significance is not a criterion for acceptance. Reporting null and negative findings is essential for an unbiased scholarly literature, and we treat such submissions on their methodological merits.

A note on qualitative and interpretive research

The literal "reproduction" of qualitative findings is neither expected nor methodologically appropriate. For qualitative research, transparency takes a different form: a detailed description of data collection methods, reflexive accounts of the researcher's positionality and how it shaped interpretation, sufficient excerpts from primary materials to support analytical claims, and an explicit description of analytical procedures (coding scheme, theoretical framework, software used).

Where ethics permit, we encourage deposit of de-identified interview transcripts, field notes, or archival materials in the Qualitative Data Repository or a similar discipline-appropriate archive. Where ethics do not permit deposit, the manuscript should describe the constraint and provide a procedure for qualified researchers to request access.

[For Journal of Natural Science Research and Review specifically: this section is adapted to the journal's discipline. See the discipline-specific addendum at the bottom of this page.]

Reviewer and editor responsibilities

Peer reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript's transparency as part of the standard review process. Where the manuscript fails to meet expectations on data availability, code availability, or methodological reporting, the reviewer flags this in the review and, where appropriate, recommends revision before publication.

Editors verify that Data Availability Statements are present in submissions where applicable, confirm that linked repositories are accessible and contain the claimed materials, and hold articles to the transparency standard appropriate to the methodology.

Compliance with this policy is one factor in editorial decisions but does not by itself determine acceptance or rejection. Scholarly merit, originality, and contribution to the field remain the primary criteria.

Post-publication reanalysis and replication

We welcome post-publication reanalyses, replication attempts, and reproducibility audits of articles published in Journal of Natural Science Research and Review. These are submitted through the normal channels and reviewed as substantive contributions, not as inferior or secondary to the original article. Where reanalysis reveals errors that materially affect the conclusions of an original article, we issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction following COPE guidance, in consultation with the original authors where possible.

Implementation

This policy applies to all submissions received after its effective date. For submissions received before the effective date that are still in review, we ask authors to comply where reasonable but do not enforce strict compliance. Where compliance is genuinely infeasible — legal restrictions, IRB constraints, third-party licensing — authors should describe the constraint in the relevant statement and propose alternative transparency measures.

Editorial discretion is applied generously during the implementation period. The intent of the policy is to encourage transparency, not to create administrative obstacles for researchers working under genuine constraints.

Effective: 1 May 2026 (v1.0).

Discipline-specific addendum (per journal)

This template includes per-journal customization that adjusts emphasis to the discipline's prevailing methodology. The customization affects:

  • the list of repositories cited (life-science journals reference GenBank, social-science journals reference ICPSR, humanities journals reference QDR)
  • the reporting standards referenced (STROBE/CONSORT for empirical/clinical, COREQ/SRQR for qualitative)
  • the emphasis on qualitative section (heavier for humanities/social-sciences, lighter for natural-sciences)
  • the examples of materials to deposit (interview schedules vs experimental stimuli vs lab protocols)

The per-journal addenda are kept in the journal-specific folders and applied at the bottom of this master text when deployed to each journal's site.

Editorial contact: editor@jnsrr.ep-journals.org
Resources for authors: OSF · Zenodo · Center for Open Science TOP Guidelines · FAIR Principles · Digital Curation Centre