Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science (AMPPS) welcomes submissions that communicate advances in methods, practices, and metascience from all areas of scientific psychology and related disciplines. The journal publishes a range of article types, including empirical articles that exemplify best practices, articles that discuss current research methods and practices in an accessible manner, and tutorials that teach researchers how to use new tools in their own research programs. An explicit part of the journal’s mission is to encourage discussion of methodological and analytical questions across multiple branches of psychological science and related disciplines. Because AMPPS is a general audience journal, all articles should be accessible and understandable to the broad membership of APS—not just to methodologists and statisticians. The journal particularly encourages articles that bring useful advances from within a specialized area to a broader audience. Submissions that push scientific and methodological boundaries are encouraged, provided that they would be relevant and of interest to a broad readership.
Read the latest editorial policies from the APS Publications Committee.
- General Journal Information
- Preparing Your Manuscript
- The Review and Editing Process
- The Production Process
General Journal Information
Articles in AMPPS will not compete with those in other APS journals. For example, empirical articles in AMPPS may involve contributions from multiple research teams or be of larger scale than those published in traditional empirical journals. Other AMPPS articles will cover current practices and considerations relevant to open science in psychology, and these will be unique to the journal. In addition, AMPPS publishes Registered Replication Reports (RRRs; see below) and multilab collaborative studies (e.g., adversarial collaborations, consortium studies, team efforts at replication). AMPPS welcomes metascience contributions that examine research practices in the field.
All articles in AMPPS will strive to adhere to best practices for open and transparent research, with de-identified data, code, and materials publicly available to the fullest extent possible. Empirical submissions to AMPPS are expected to be eligible for all three open-science badges available in APS journals (Open Data, Open Materials, Preregistration; see the APS Open Practice Badges page). Authors are encouraged to provide video recordings of their testing settings and experimental procedures.
Not all analyses must be confirmatory for an article to earn a Preregistration badge. However, all confirmatory hypothesis tests are expected to be preregistered in submissions to AMPPS (e.g., articles might include a study reporting exploratory tests, accompanied by a preregistered replication). AMPPS also publishes analyses of preexisting data sets, not all of which can be preregistered. Authors should indicate clearly which hypotheses and analyses were preregistered and which were not. Authors with questions about preregistration should read this discussion written by the editors of APS’s three empirical journals.
The online versions of articles on the AMPPS website can include interactive content such as videos, Shiny applications, and working code snippets; the print and PDF versions of articles with interactive content will contain a link to it. AMPPS encourages the use of interactive content, particularly in tutorials. AMPPS authors may deposit materials in a permanent repository of their choice.
Manuscripts must be submitted through the AMPPS submission website. If, after reviewing these guidelines, authors have questions about the appropriateness of a manuscript for AMPPS, they are encouraged to email the editor at email@example.com to inquire.
AMPPS has two main sections, one devoted to research practices, metascience, and methodology and a second devoted to novel types of empirical work. Consequently, the journal accepts both empirical and nonempirical articles. Empirical article types include:
Nonempirical article types include:
These generally constitute the Research Practices section.
Each of these article types is described in detail below.
Types of Empirical Manuscripts
Empirical articles in AMPPS report novel approaches to research, as compared to more traditional practices that might be found in standard single-lab experiments. AMPPS is open to new approaches to experimentation and collaboration as well as large-scale studies adopting new and innovative methodological approaches and high-quality methodological articles disseminating state-of-the-art methods, statistical techniques, modeling, and so on. All empirical articles in AMPPS should adhere to best practices for reproducible and open research. In addition, empirical articles in AMPPS might involve efforts such as multilab collaborative projects, adversarial collaborations, and large-scale replication efforts. The journal welcomes registered reports for which the review process focuses on evaluating and improving the introduction, methods, and analysis plan before data are gathered. The journal also serves as a forum for demonstrating best practices for open science, including preregistration, open and publicly available code and data, and full reporting of results.
The method and results sections of empirical articles should be concise, but complete. Authors should clearly define the target populations for generality as well as the specific population sampled from in the study, and they should specify known constraints on generality (see Simons, Shoda, and Lindsay (2017) for instructions). Articles should fully describe the procedures necessary to reproduce the study, and they should fully convey the results of the study. Concisely reported robustness checks are encouraged, and more extensive analyses can be included in the Supplemental Material. Articles should combine their results and discussion into one section to ensure clear and concise communication of findings. However, broader theoretical discussion should be confined to the General Discussion section. Tables and figures may be used as necessary to convey the results.
AMPPS does not impose word limits on empirical articles, but articles should be concise and written to be accessible. The word counts below provide a rough guide of expectations. Authors should consult the Editor in Chief prior to submission if the word count substantially exceeds these guidelines.
Innovative Empirical Articles demonstrate or illustrate innovative methods and/or research practices. They include empirical articles for which data collection has already occurred. Unlike the RRRs and Registered Reports, Innovative Empirical Articles are submitted as final manuscripts and undergo a standard peer-review process. Innovative Empirical Articles are expected to adhere to best practices for transparent and reproducible science. AMPPS will consider empirical articles reporting a series of experiments from a single laboratory if they exemplify new methods or best practices, but Innovative Empirical Articles typically will involve novel empirical approaches or large-scale studies that are atypical for other journals that publish empirical work. Innovative Empirical Articles can include the full range of methodological approaches, from observational field studies to experimental laboratory studies, provided that they exemplify best practices or novel methodological approaches. Innovative Empirical Article submissions that are inappropriate for AMPPS may be rejected prior to review.
- 3,000–5,000 words including the introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references. Shorter articles are permitted, and substantially longer articles may be permitted with prior approval from the Editor in Chief.
Registered Reports are a new form of journal submission for which the primary review, evaluation, and revision process occurs prior to data collection (see https://cos.io/rr/). Authors submit a manuscript that includes a complete introduction, method section, and results section. The results section will not include the actual outcomes from the study, because no outcome data will be collected until the submission has benefited from the review process and been provisionally accepted. The results section should state how the results will be reported, ideally by using simulated data to test the analysis scripts and by illustrating the format the results will take. The submission should include links to all materials that will be used to conduct the study and all scripts that will be used to analyze the results. Once the Registered Report has been provisionally accepted, authors then conduct the study and analyze the collected data following the preregistered plan. Assuming that all prespecified conditions have been met and that the actual study adhered to the registered plan, the article will be accepted regardless of the outcome of the study. Note that the final article can include additional analyses and data exploration beyond those described in the original submission. However, those additional analyses should not be treated as confirmatory hypothesis tests and should be clearly marked as exploratory.
- 3,000–5,000 words including the introduction, method, results, discussion, and references. Shorter articles are permitted, and substantially longer articles may be permitted with prior approval from the Editor in Chief.
Registered Replication Reports describe the meta-analytic result of a set of independently conducted direct replications of an important original finding. These replications all follow a pre-approved, preregistered protocol and analysis plan. The decision about whether or not to launch an RRR involves a multistage process to determine (a) whether the original study has high replication value, (b) whether the results would be of broad interest regardless of the outcome, and (c) whether enough laboratories could participate given the resources available. If the editors determine that an RRR would be merited, the submission process works much like that for a Registered Report article. The introduction and general discussion sections for RRRs should be brief, objective, and focused on the study under investigation. RRR manuscripts should not include extensive speculation or theorizing. For more information about RRRs, see this article.
- Introductions should be concise and focused on motivating the replication study rather than reviewing the broader literature (<1,500 words).
- General Discussion sections should be brief (500–1,000 words).
Types of Nonempirical Manuscripts
AMPPS publishes a variety of nonempirical articles. Some nonempirical articles will appear within invited collections of articles, including debates about research practices, but AMPPS encourages unsolicited submission of both General Articles and Tutorials.
General Nonempirical Articles in AMPPS can cover any topic related to methods and best practices, including simulation studies, discussions of metascience, evaluations and comparisons of different analysis techniques, and re-analyses of existing data. These articles should be accessible to a broad audience. AMPPS does not publish statistics and methods articles that are written primarily for methodological or statistical experts; the target audience should be the broad membership of APS.
- 3,000–5,000 words. Shorter articles are permitted, and substantially longer articles may be permitted with prior approval from the Editor in Chief.
- Any necessary figures, tables, and code snippets are permitted, although the use of figures and tables should not be excessive.
- Authors should provide the code necessary to reproduce any simulations, analyses, or results.
Tutorials provide hands-on, practical guidance for researchers. Any topic that could enhance research practices or methods for researchers might be suitable as a tutorial. For example, AMPPS welcomes tutorials that focus on helping researchers learn to use statistical tools, improve their statistical practices and intuitions, better their data management and lab practices, enhance the reliability and reproducibility of their research, or facilitate transparent and open practices. Tutorials typically include dynamic, interactive content and should provide concrete guidance rather than abstract principles. Some tutorials will be solicited by the editorial team, and the team welcomes both suggestions for tutorial topics and proposals for tutorials, which can be submitted by emailing the editors a short, 1-2 paragraph summary.
- Most tutorials should be brief (<3,000 words), but they may be longer if necessary to explain the content fully and make it accessible and usable to readers.
- Introductions typically should be no more than one to two paragraphs long (<500 words) and should not include extensive literature reviews. The introduction should explain the need for the tutorial and highlight how learning the contents will benefit readers.
- Rather than a General Discussion section, Tutorials should have a one-paragraph summary of their contents.
- Tutorials should be accompanied by publicly available code and all resources necessary for researchers (and reviewers) to follow them.
- Tutorials should include a list of additional resources for readers who would like to learn more. The list can include links to online sources as well as citations to other articles.
Reviews include brief overviews and links to new tools and resources, summaries of conferences and symposia addressing methods and best practices, book reviews, and annotated bibliographies. AMPPS does not publish literature reviews. Most Reviews will be solicited by the editorial team, and authors should query the editors with ideas for Reviews before submitting.
- 1,000 words
Most commentaries are invited, and commentary topics must have prior approval from the editors. For RRRs, original authors who help review the protocol are given the opportunity to write a commentary on the finished RRR. On occasion, the editors may solicit commentaries for General Articles or other empirical articles. Authors who have an idea for a commentary on an article published in AMPPS should query the editors before submitting.
- 1,000 words, with shorter commentaries accepted. Longer commentaries will be permitted only with prior approval of the Editor in Chief.
- Commentaries should not include new empirical research.
Note that APS journals follow the code of conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follow COPE guidelines when misconduct is suspected or alleged. All articles in AMPPS should adhere to the stated policies for reporting of statistics and the specified manuscript structure.
All statistics reported in AMPPS should be fully reproducible from the data. Authors should provide all necessary statistical scripts and data to reproduce the reported analyses. Authors are strongly encouraged to use open-access tools for their data analysis to allow for maximal reproducibility by others. Authors are also strongly encouraged to verify any reported statistical analyses using online tools such as the R package statcheck (or the statcheck Web tool) to verify that statistics are reported accurately.
All statistical tests should be reported to an appropriate number of decimal places given the precision of the measures involved. Reported p values should be exact (e.g., p = .007 rather than p < .01). All statistical tests should be accompanied by an appropriate effect-size estimate, either in the original units or as a standardized effect size. Repeated-measures analyses should be accompanied by an indication of the correlation between the measures, a reliability estimate, and an effect-size estimate. Effect sizes should be accompanied by a confidence interval.
Any article reporting inferential statistics of any form should identify both the proximal population (the group the researchers sampled from; e.g., the Department of Psychology subject pool at the University of Illinois) and the target population for generality (the group to which the researchers believe their findings generalize; e.g., undergraduates at any university, all adults). Articles should include a one-paragraph section in the General Discussion headed “Constraints on Generality” (COG) that briefly describes the justification for drawing inferences about the target population. Specifically, this COG statement should provide the empirical grounding and theoretical reasons for claims of generality and the limits on those claims. See Simons, Shoda, and Lindsay (2017) for a description of COG statements and examples of appropriate ones.
Given that AMPPS is devoted to discussing and debating best practices, the journal does not prescribe or endorse any particular analytical approach. Researchers should strive to illustrate and communicate the merits of and rationale for the approach they take.
Submissions should follow the guidelines of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.) for references, abbreviations, and symbols. AMPPS encourages authors to embed figures in the manuscript near where they are referenced rather than putting all figures at the end. Similarly, tables should be embedded in the text unless they occupy more than one manuscript page; larger tables can be included at the end of the manuscript. After acceptance, authors may be required to submit a separate high-quality version of each figure for production purposes.
For the review process, AMPPS permits submission of an already-formatted article (using LaTex, R Markdown, or other formatting options) as long as it is accompanied by a Word file submission. Submitting a formatted manuscript can make the review process easier for reviewers and editors, and it allows for a completely reproducible process that incorporates both the manuscript and analyses within a single file (e.g., in R Markdown or as an R Notebook). If authors are using such a reproducible approach, they should submit that file and accompanying files necessary to reproduce it as a supplement. For the publication process, the journal will require an editable Word file with separate figures.
Authors of tutorials or other interactive content should provide access to a working version of any interactive demonstrations. If the authors lack a way to host such tools that would permit anonymous review, they should contact the editorial team before submission.
For empirical articles, authors are encouraged to combine the results and discussion sections so that statistical analyses are accompanied by prose describing what they test and discussing what they show. However, the Results and Discussion section should not include extensive theorizing and speculation.
Authors of manuscripts with an unusually large number of authors, such as Registered Replication Reports or multi-lab projects, will be asked upon acceptance to provide a complete author list in a separate spreadsheet. A template for compiling long author lists can be downloaded here, and it is also available in the SAGE Track submission system through the “Instructions and Forms” link.
Authors reporting research involving human subjects should indicate whether the protocol was approved by an institutional review board or similar committee and whether it was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Authors reporting research involving nonhuman animal subjects should indicate whether institutional and national guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed.
Identifying information of participants will not be published unless the information is necessary and written, informed consent is obtained.
Any potential conflicts of interest should be reported in the online submission process and in the article. The Declaration of Conflicting Interests section that appears in every article will state any reported conflicts; if there are no conflicts, the Declaration will read “The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.”
Manuscripts should conform to the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. In particular, authors should reference the following sections:
- A. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors
- B. Author Responsibilities—Conflicts of Interest
- E. Protection of Research Participants
- B. Scientific Misconduct, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction
- K. Clinical Trial Registration (if applicable)
The APS journals follow the code of conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follow COPE guidelines when misconduct is suspected or alleged.
Articles in AMPPS have a separate section immediately prior to the Method section that is labeled “Disclosures.” The section is intended to communicate and consolidate into a single location all information about preregistration, ethics, and reporting and to provide links to data, materials, and Supplemental Material. The Disclosures section eliminates the need to report this information in other sections of the article. The Disclosures section should include all of the following, each with its own subheading (nonempirical articles or those that could not have been preregistered can omit items 1 through 4):
- Preregistration: Provide a link to any preregistration documentation. If only a subset of reported studies were preregistered, indicate which ones were and which ones were not.
- Data, materials, and online resources: Provide a permanent, persisting link to a public archive where readers can access any code, materials, de-identified data, and other resources (e.g., osf.io, perma.cc, clinicaltrials.gov). If any materials or data are not publicly available, the article should explain why and should note how researchers can access them for research purposes.
- Reporting: The text here should state “We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in the study” (see Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011). If any aspect of this statement is untrue, authors should explain why. All such details should be specified in the preregistration documentation as well.
- Subjects: If the article reports research with human or animal subjects, authors should state that testing was conducted with the approval of an institutional review board or similar ethics committee (with the protocol number provided). For those involving human subjects, authors should state whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki; note that the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki requires preregistration before data collection begins.
- Conflicts of Interest: Authors should identify any conflicts of interest here and should also report them during the submission process. If authors have no conflicts of interest, they should state, “The author(s) declare that they have no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.”
- Author Contributions: Authorship implies significant participation in the research reported or in writing the manuscript, including participation in the design and/or interpretation of reported experiments or results, participation in the acquisition and/or analysis of data, and participation in drafting and/or revising the manuscript. All authors must agree to the order in which the authors are listed and must have read the final manuscript and approved its submission. They must also agree to take responsibility for the work in the event that its integrity or veracity is questioned. Authors should precisely describe their contributions to the research and manuscript, identifying each author by his or her initials. For example, “DJS and AOH jointly generated the idea for the study. AOH programmed the study and collected the data. DJS wrote the analysis code and analyzed the data, and AOH verified the accuracy of those analyses. DJS wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and both authors critically edited it. Both authors approved the final submitted version of the manuscript.”
- Acknowledgments: Authors should use this section to identify any people who should be credited for their assistance with the reported research.
- Prior versions: If part or all of a submitted manuscript was previously posted to a blog or to a preprint archive, provide a link to those sources and briefly indicate what aspects of the manuscript are shared between the submitted version and earlier versions.
Authors may query the editors for guidance before submission of any manuscript type or to submit an article proposal in the form of a 1-2 paragraph summary. Although editors might be able to provide input and suggestions prior to submission, editor encouragement to submit a manuscript does not guarantee that the submission will be deemed appropriate for AMPPS or that it will eventually be accepted for publication.
Initially, editors will evaluate each submission internally to determine whether the content fits the scope of AMPPS and whether the submission meets all of the requirements for publication in AMPPS (e.g., see the “Content Requirements” section above). Articles in AMPPS must be understandable to a wide audience, and those deemed inappropriately narrow may be rejected or returned to the authors prior to external review. Manuscripts that that fall within the scope of AMPPS will be sent to two or more external experts for peer review. To ensure accessibility, at least one reviewer, often an editorial board member, will be asked to evaluate the accessibility of the article to a broad audience. That “breadth” reviewer will not be an expert on the subject matter or methodology. Authors may submit the names of preferred (“recommended”) and nonpreferred (“opposed”) reviewers, and editors will consider these requests.
Based on that review process, and typically within 60 days, the assigned Associate Editor or the Editor in Chief will send an action letter with their decision (accept, decline/reject, or revise and resubmit). Articles that are declined may not be revised for resubmission. Revised submissions may be sent to the original reviewers or to additional reviewers should the editor need more guidance, or the editor might act on the revision without further review. The final, published version of the article will identify the action editor.
Unlike other article types, both Registered Reports and RRRs undergo review prior to data collection. The process for each differs from that for other types of articles that are submitted as a final product. Note, though, that hybrid approaches in which one or more studies meet the registered report requirements and others do not will be considered as well. Authors are encouraged to contact the editors to evaluate the best approach for such submissions.
For RRRs, interested authors should submit a completed Proposal Form through the submission portal. The form asks authors to (a) identify the original, to-be-replicated study, (b) justify that study’s replication value, and (c) provide information about what would be needed for an accurate replication. The editorial team will discuss such proposals and may consult outside experts to determine the merits of overseeing a large, multilab replication of that original study. This initial stage of review typically takes less than 2 weeks. At that point, the proposal will be either declined or approved. If it is approved, the authors will be asked to develop a protocol to complete the study and to draft a pre-data manuscript (along with experiment scripts if needed). These materials will be sent to the authors of the original study for constructive feedback. The editor will oversee this development process and will provide guidance about necessary revisions (sometimes seeking external reviewer guidance). Once completed, the pre-data manuscript and protocol will be provisionally accepted. AMPPS will then announce a call for contributing laboratories that will follow the protocol and join the project. Once completed, the authors will conduct the planned analyses and update the pre-data manuscript. The updated manuscript will be sent for constructive review to the original reviewers. The review process for RRRs involves multiple stages and steps, and the editors will work closely with the authors once a project has been approved to proceed.
The review process for a Registered Report occurs before data collection. The review process focuses on whether the planned study is well motivated and well designed. Reviewers will be asked to evaluate whether the study outcome will be theoretically and empirically meaningful regardless of the outcome. They will also be asked to identify possible factors that could undermine the usefulness of the study (e.g., unreliable measures or manipulations, ceiling or floor effects, necessary manipulation checks). In some cases, the review process might suggest necessary pilot work or preliminary testing before the study design can be pre-approved. If accepted, the submission will be provisionally accepted. And, assuming the study meets the prespecified conditions, the eventual article will be published regardless of the study outcome. The post-data manuscript will be reviewed for clarity and for constructive comments about possible additional exploratory analyses, but acceptance will not be contingent on the outcome of the study or any additional tests.
Authors may request an open review process upon submission. Should all parties agree to open review, the review process will become public upon final publication. Materials from the entire review sequence, including each submitted version of the manuscript, the reviews at each stage, and all action letters, will be publicly available as material supplemental to the final published article. Note that just because authors request an open review does not mean that the process will be open. All reviewers must agree to an open process, and if one or more reviewer opts out of open review, the process will remain confidential and private. Authors may publicly post drafts of their manuscripts regardless of whether or not the process is open. But, just as reviewers must treat the review process as confidential, authors should treat the reviews as confidential.
Given that AMPPS requires public availability of data (to the extent that is ethically possible), AMPPS reviewers are required to agree to keep both the manuscript and the data confidential. Reviewers may re-examine the claims made in the article by verifying the accuracy of the analyses, but they should treat the data as proprietary throughout the review process. Once an article is published and the data become publicly available, others may access those public data and conduct analyses based on them. Authors can specify how use of those data should be cited/credited.
AMPPS does not compete directly with other journals of the Association, including Psychological Science, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Current Directions in Psychological Science, or Clinical Psychological Science. The editors of AMPPS are willing to consider manuscripts that were previously rejected by another APS journal provided that the topic is within the scope of the journal. Editors at AMPPS have access to, and are free to consider, the action letter and reviews from the previous APS submission as part of their editorial process. In a cover letter accompanying the new submission, authors should explain in detail how they have addressed the concerns raised in the prior action letter. Manuscript submissions that have not addressed legitimate concerns raised during the first review process are unlikely to be reviewed further at AMPPS.
Posting of a manuscript to a preprint archive prior to submission is permitted by AMPPS. Such preprints should be disclosed explicitly in the submitted manuscript. Similarly, content posted originally to a blog or other online site or appearing in a conference proceeding may be rewritten as a manuscript submission for AMPPS, provided that the manuscript discloses and cites the earlier version and adheres to all other submission guidelines.
APS does not have media embargoes for any of its publications. However, for submissions such as RRRs, in which the final result involves a meta-analysis across many replication studies, results from individual studies should not be made available until the complete manuscript is publicly available. That policy prevents piecemeal release of results that could bias ongoing studies in the project and also allows for a commentary or response from the original author to be included alongside the complete set of results.
In order for SAGE to proceed with publication of an article, authors must complete a Contributor Publishing Agreement online. This form can be found in the Author Center of the AMPPS submission system. Within the Author Dashboard is the “Manuscripts with Decisions” queue, where authors can access the “Contributor Form” link within the “Action” column for accepted manuscripts. Please note that without a completed agreement, we are unable to proceed with publication of any article.
If an accepted manuscript contains third-party material requiring permission, authors should forward all permission agreements to the editorial office within 5 days of signing the Contributor Publishing Agreement.
If a figure or video includes an image of a person, the authors must obtain a signed Audio/Visual Likeness Release Form from each person appearing in the figure or video before the article can be published. This is also true for photographs or video of celebrities. Please contact the editorial office if you have any questions.
A member of APS’s production team will contact authors regarding copyediting of their manuscript. Please note that copyeditors edit accepted articles—often extensively—so that they will be clear and accessible to all readers of AMPPS.
Authors who would like to refine the use of English in their manuscripts might consider using the services of a professional English-language editing company. A listing of some of these companies follows. Please be aware that the journal makes no endorsement of any of these companies. An author’s use of these services in no way guarantees that his or her submission will ultimately be accepted. Any arrangement an author enters into will be exclusively between the author and the particular company, and any costs incurred are the sole responsibility of the author.
- American Journal Experts
- ATECS – Text Editing
- Charlesworth Group
- Clark Scientific Editing
- Dragonfly Freelance Writing and Editing Services
- SAGE Language Services
- SPI Global Professional Editing Services
The APS journals offer both green and gold open-access options that enable authors to comply with mandates from funders such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Wellcome Trust, and Research Councils UK.
APS and SAGE can help fulfill many funders’ mandates to archive accepted manuscripts by making articles open-access and depositing manuscript files in PubMed Central. NIH-funded manuscripts submitted will be deposited into PubMed Central upon acceptance for publication as long as the authors indicate the funding during the submission process. Authors who wish to pay to make an article publicly available immediately upon publication in order to comply with NIH or similar requirements may use the SAGE Choice option (gold open access).
Note that authors who do not choose to participate in SAGE Choice must agree to a 12-month embargo for manuscripts submitted to PubMed Central.
For more information on open-access options and compliance at SAGE, including author self-archiving deposits (green open access) and SAGE Choice (gold open access), visit SAGE Publishing Policies on the Journal Author Gateway.
Note that APS makes all RRR articles open-access at no charge.
Author of articles may do the following at any time without seeking permission:
- Distribute photocopies of the published article for teaching purposes or to research colleagues on a noncommercial basis.
- Circulate or post the originally submitted manuscript (i.e., the pre-peer-review version) or an abstract of the article on any repository or website.
- Post the accepted (post-peer-review) version of the manuscript on their own personal website, their department’s website, or a repository of their institution.
- Use the final published version of the article in a book they write or edit.
One year after publication, authors may also post the accepted version of the article in any repository or website not listed above. Authors may not post the final published article on a website or in a repository without permission from SAGE; the SAGE-created PDF of the final published article may not be posted elsewhere at any time. When posting or reusing the article, authors should provide a DOI link to the published version. For any use not detailed above, please contact SAGE at firstname.lastname@example.org. Please forward to SAGE all inquiries and requests received from third parties for permissions, reprint rights, subsidiary rights licenses, and all other uses and licensing of the article.
If you discover an error in your published article, please email email@example.com immediately. The journal’s managing editor will work with you and the Editor in Chief to determine whether a correction should be made and what form it should take. An erratum corrects an error made by APS or the publisher; a corrigendum corrects an error made by the author(s).
A correction notice will be published if an error affects the publication record, the scientific integrity of the article, or the reputation of the authors or the journal. In general, AMPPS will not publish a formal correction for spelling or grammatical errors or for errors that do not significantly affect an article’s findings or conclusions or a reader’s understanding.
If a correction notice is published, a new, corrected version of the article will be posted online unless there is no obvious corrected version to replace the original. For example, if the purpose of the correction is to acknowledge work that was not cited but perhaps should have been, there will be a correction notice but no new online version.
Ready to submit your manuscript? Access the submission portal at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ampps.