AMPPS flow chart

**Is my manuscript appropriate for AMPPS?** This interactive flow chart can help you determine whether or not your manuscript is appropriate for AMPPS. We desk reject papers that fall outside of our scope or that are inappropriate for our target audience. The submission guidelines provide more details about the types of papers we publish: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/ampps/ampps-submission-guidelines. The guidelines also include information about required sections and length guidelines. [[begin->Understandable?]]

Is the main body text of the manuscript understandable by a reader who has taken no more than one or two introductory graduate statistics classes in psychology at some point in the past? Note that derivations, proofs, and other more technical content may conveyed through "in detail" text boxes so that readers who want to understand the issues in greater depth can do so. Any AMPPS reader should be able to follow the core arguments in the main body text without fully understanding the content of any "in detail" boxes. [[Yes, the main body text is understandable to a novice reader->new empirical?]] [[No, the main body text includes more advanced technical content->Not appropriate]]

Does the manuscript present new empirical work? [[yes->multilab?]] [[no, it is a hands-on tutorial->tutorial]] [[no, it is a non-empirical paper on methods, research practices, or statistics-->general non-empirical article]]

The manuscript likely is not appropriate for AMPPS.

Does the manuscript present a multi-lab collaborative effort or other innovative approach to data collection (i.e., something other than a single-lab empirical paper of the sort published in most empirical journals)? [[yes->data collected already?]] [[no->metascience on research practices?]]

Has data collection already happened? [[yes->preregistered and open?]] [[no->replication?]]

Is the focus of the empirical work on research practices or meta-science issues (e.g., a survey of beliefs about making data available)? [[yes->metascience data collected?]] [[no->focus on innovative technique]]

Was the study preregistered, and will all materials, data, and code be made available to reviewers? [[yes->Empirical Article]] [[No->Likely not appropriate]]

Will this project report the results of a multi-lab replication study? [[yes->Possible RRR]] [[no->Possible RR]]

This manuscript appears to be appropriate as an Empirical Article for AMPPS. The journal publishes empirical articles that adopt new approaches to data collection (e.g., multilab studies, adversarial collaborations, etc.) that adhere to high standards for openness and transparency, including preregistration, open materials, and available data (to the extent ethically permitted). Those materials should be available to the editors and reviewers upon submission. Papers should be accessible and of interest to a broad range of readers.

Although AMPPS does sometimes publish Empirical Articles that lack preregistration, fully open materials, and open data, those would be exceptions that require editorial approval. If you think your article might be appropriate despite not adhering to all of these standards for openness and transparency, please email the editor at [email protected] prior before submitting your manuscript.

This manuscript might be appropriate as a Registered Replication Report (RRR). The first step for an RRR is to submit a proposal that will undergo editorial review. Please see the submission guidelines for details on how to submit an RRR and the details of the process for this article type.

For empirical studies that have yet to begin data collection and that are not a replication study (see the RRR manuscript type for that), AMPPS strongly encourages submissions that take the form of a Registered Report. The initial stage of submission for a Registered Report includes the full introduction, method section, and results section (using placeholders rather than actual outcomes). Please see the submission guidelines for detailed instructions on submitting a Registered Report (along with examples of successful phase-1 manuscripts).

Has data collection already happened? [[yes->open meta science]] [[no->Possible RR]]

Does the manuscript focus on an innovative method or analysis technique that will be of interest to and useful for readers in multiple subfields of psychology? [[yes->single lab open?]] [[no->not appropriate single lab or narrow]]

Will all materials, data, and code used in any analyses be made as widely available as ethically and legally possible? [[yes->Empirical Article]] [[No->Likely not appropriate]]

Was the study preregistered, and will all materials, data, and code be made as widely available as ethically and legally possible? [[yes->Possible Empirical Article]] [[no->Likely not appropriate]]

AMPPS does not publish single lab empirical work that addresses substantive or theoretical questions and the journal only considers work that would be of interest to a broad audience, appealing beyond a single subfield. For single-lab empirical research addressing a more focused theoretical question or one focused on statistical or methodological issues of interst within a subfield, a more specialized journal would be a better outlet.

This manuscript might be appropriate as an Empirical Article, but you should email the editor ([email protected]) before submitting given that AMPPS rarely publishes single-lab empirical work.

AMPPS publishes hands-on tutorials that teach readers a new skill or introduce a new approach. Will this tutorial be accessible to a broad readership and will they be able to use it to acquire a new skill or understanding that will benefit their own research or thinking? [[yes->technically accessible]] [[no->Not appropropriate-tutorial]]

Does the manuscript discuss research practices, consider meta-science issues (e.g., replicability, philosophy of science, historical trends, etc), or address method/statistics issues using simulations or argumentation? [[yes->General Article accessible]] [[no->Possibly not appropriate-General Article]]

AMPPS encourage authors to test the understandability of their tutorials on novice readers prior to submission. Can someone without extensive technical knowledge or expertise follow the tutorial successfully? [[Yes->original tutorial?]] [[no->Not appropropriate-tutorial]]

This manuscript likely is not appropriate for AMPPS. All papers in AMPPS must be relevant to and understandable by researcher from multiple subfields of psychology. Tutorials specific to a single research domain are not appropriate for AMPPS. Nor are tutorials that are inaccessible to relatively novice readers. Some prerequisite knowledge is allowed for tutorials (e.g., rudimentary knowledge of R), especially if authors can point readers to other tutorials that would provide the necessary background. Tutorials that require extensive or specialized technical knowledge likely are not appropriate for AMPPS.

Is the content of this tutorial original and not already covered extensively in blog posts or other online tutorials? [[yes->Possible Tutorial]] [[no->Likely not appropriate - tutorial]]

Consider submitting this manuscript a Tutorial. Please read the submission guidelines for recommended formatting and other information about the Tutorial article type, and please ensure that all code necessary to follow the tutorial is available to the editors and reviewers.

This tutorial likely is not appropriate for AMPPS. Contributions to AMPPS must make a new contribution. If the tutorial content has been covered extensively online or in other outlets with a comparable level of accessibility, it likely is not appropriate for AMPPS. Note that there might be exceptions for cases in which the content might be beneficial to the AMPPS readership even if it has been covered elsewhere. Please email the editor ([email protected]) before submitting a manuscript in such cases.

Will the content be both relevant to and practically useful for researchers across multiple subfields of psychology, and will a reader without expertise or technical knowledge be able to follow the main arguments successfully? [[yes-> General Article Open]] [[no->Possibly not appropriate-General Article]]

AMPPS considers a range of General Articles (including Commentaries on articles we have published and other article formats). If your manuscript does not fit one of the categories described in the submission guidelines, please email the editor ([email protected]) before submitting. All papers in AMPPS must be relevant to and useful for researchers across multiple subfields of psychology. Papers that will be of primary interest to researchers addressing a single content or theoretical question are not appropriate for AMPPS. Papers of interest only to researchers in a single subfield of psychology (e.g., only to cognitive psychologists or only to memory researchers) are unlikely to be appropriate for AMPPS. The main body text of General Articles should be written accessibly and free from extensive technical content. Papers in AMPPS are expected to adhere to high standards for openness and transparency. Any code, materials, or data discussed in a paper should be made as widely available as ethically and legally possible. Papers that discuss such materials but do not make them open might still be considered for publication by AMPPS if suitable reasons can be provided. In such cases, you should email ([email protected]) the editor prior to submission.

Will any code, materials, or data discussed in the paper be made available to reviewers and readers? [[yes->Possible General Article]] [[no->Possibly not appropriate-General Article]] [[manuscript does not use any code, materials, or data->Possible General Article]]

This manuscript appears to be appropriate as a General Article. Please see the submission guideliness for details on this article type.