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
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 accepts articles reporting novel types of empirical work and nonempirical articles on research practices, metascience, statistical practices, and methodology. AMPPS publishes two types of empirical articles:
AMPPS publishes three types of nonempirical articles:
Each of these article types is described in detail below. Authors can use this interactive tool to determine whether a manuscript is appropriate for AMPPS.
AMPPS does not impose word limits on articles, but the word counts noted below provide a rough guide to expectations. Shorter articles are encouraged, and substantially longer articles may be permitted with prior approval from the Editor.
AMPPS does not publish single-lab empirical articles of the sort that are regularly published by other journals (such as Psychological Science or field-specific journals). Empirical articles in AMPPS report on novel approaches to research, including new approaches to experimentation and collaboration, as well as large-scale studies adopting new, innovative methodological approaches. Empirical articles in AMPPS typically report the results of multilab collaborative projects.
Empirical Articles in AMPPS should adhere to and demonstrate rigorous reporting and documentation standards: Studies should be preregistered whenever feasible, data and materials should be available from an independent third-party repository during the review stage and afterward, and so forth. Empirical Articles can report on studies across the full range of methodological approaches, from field observation to laboratory research, provided that they exemplify best practices or novel methodological approaches. They also can report new analyses of data collected previously. Submissions that are inappropriate for AMPPS may be rejected prior to review.
The Method and Results sections of Empirical Articles should be concise, but complete and accessible. Every Empirical Article should fully describe the procedures necessary to reproduce the study and should fully convey the results of the study. Concisely reported robustness checks are encouraged, and more extensive analyses can be included in Supplemental Material. Results and discussion should be combined to ensure clear and concise communication of findings. Broader theoretical discussion and speculation should be confined to the General Discussion section. Tables and figures may be used as necessary to convey the results.
The journal welcomes Empirical Articles that take the form of registered reports. For registered reports, the primary review and revision process occurs prior to data collection and focuses on evaluating and improving the introduction, methods, and analysis plan (see https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/ampps/registered-report-guidelines for detailed guidelines and examples).
For registered reports, authors submit a manuscript that includes a complete introduction, Method section(s), and Results section(s). The Results section(s) should be written as if the data had been collected, with placeholders—for example, “t(XX) = XXXX, p = XXXX”—for the results of any statistical tests and contingent language illustrating how different outcomes will be described (e.g., “the observed effect was [larger than | comparable to | smaller than] the predicted one”). Ideally, all analysis scripts should be written prior to data collection, and the Results section(s) can include tables and figures generated using simulated data to illustrate how each outcome will be tested and reported.
The submission of a registered report should include links to all materials that will be used to conduct the study and all scripts that will be used to analyze the data. Once a registered report has been provisionally accepted, the authors 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 has 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 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.
- The suggested maximum length for Empirical Articles is 5,000 words, including the introduction, presentation of methods and results, discussion, and references.
A Registered Replication Report is a special type of registered report that describes the meta-analytic result of a set of independently conducted direct replications of an important original study. These replications all follow a preapproved, 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 of value, the submission process works much like that for an Empirical Article that is a registered report. 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 Simons and Holcombe (2014).
- Introductions should be concise (< 1,500 words) and focused on the motivations for conducting the replication study rather than a review of the broader literature.
- General Discussion sections should be brief (500–1,000 words).
General Articles in AMPPS can cover any topic related to methods and practices. For example, they can report simulation studies, discuss metascience, evaluate and compare different analysis techniques, and present reanalyses of existing data. AMPPS does not publish methods and statistics articles that are written primarily for methodological or statistical experts; the target audience should be the broad membership of APS. Authors should assume that readers come from all subfields of psychology and have a level of statistical training equivalent to one or two graduate psychology statistics courses at some point in their past. The journal does not publish articles focused on methods or practices specific to a single substantive content area; articles must be relevant to and useful for a broad readership. Authors should provide the code necessary to reproduce any simulations, analyses, or results.
- The suggested length for General Articles is 3,000 to 5,000 words.
Tutorials provide hands-on, practical guidance for researchers. Any topic that could enhance research practices or methods might be suitable for a Tutorial, provided that the material covered in the Tutorial would be relevant to and useful for the journal’s broad readership; Tutorials of more narrow interest or of relevance to only one subfield or literature typically are not appropriate for AMPPS. 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, engage in transparent and open practices, and so on. Tutorials often include dynamic, interactive content and should provide concrete guidance rather than solely abstract principles. Some Tutorials will be solicited by the editorial team, and the team welcomes suggestions and proposals for Tutorials.
- Most Tutorials should be brief (< 3,000 words), but they may be longer if necessary to explain the content fully and make it accessible to and usable by readers.
- The introduction to a Tutorial typically should be no more than one to two paragraphs long (< 500 words) and should not include an extensive literature review. The introduction should explain the motivation for the Tutorial and highlight how learning the contents will benefit readers.
- Tutorials should have a brief summary of their contents, rather than a General Discussion section.
- Tutorials should be accompanied by publicly available code and all resources necessary for researchers (and reviewers) to follow the text.
- Tutorials can include a list of additional resources (e.g., citations and links) for readers who would like to learn more.
Commentary topics must have prior approval from the editors. Original authors who help evaluate the protocol for an RRR are given the opportunity to write a Commentary on the finished report (typically on the basis of the results-blind, provisionally accepted manuscript). On occasion, the editors may solicit Commentaries on General Articles or Empirical Articles. Authors who have an idea for a Commentary on an article published in AMPPS should contact a member of the editorial team before submitting a manuscript.
- The suggested length for Commentaries is 750 to 1,000 words. Longer commentaries will be permitted only with prior approval of the Editor.
- Commentaries should not present new empirical research.
Note that 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. All manuscripts should conform to the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. In particular, authors should refer to the following sections:
- II.A. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors
- II.B. Author Responsibilities—Conflicts of Interest
- II.E. Protection of Research Participants
- III.B. Scientific Misconduct, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction
- III.L. Clinical Trial Registration (if applicable)
Articles in AMPPS should adhere to the following policies regarding reporting of statistics and manuscript structure.
All statistics reported in AMPPS should be fully reproducible from the data. Authors should provide all statistical scripts and data necessary to reproduce the reported analyses. Authors are strongly encouraged to use open-access tools for their data analysis to allow for maximal reproducibility by other researchers. Authors are also strongly encouraged to verify the accuracy of any reported statistical analyses (e.g., by using online tools such as the R package statcheck or the statcheck Web tool).
When using inferential statistics, authors should clearly specify both the proximal population from which they sampled (e.g., the subject pool at their university, Amazon Mechanical Turk) and the assumed target population for their inferences (e.g., students at American universities, typically developing primary-school children). They should also specify and justify their assumptions about the generality of the materials and testing context used in the study (see Simons, Shoda, & Lindsay, 2017, for guidance).
All statistics 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 standardized. 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 confidence intervals.
Given that AMPPS is devoted to discussing and debating best practices, the journal does not prescribe or endorse any particular analytic 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 to put 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 will need to provide a high-quality version of each figure for production purposes.
For the review process, AMPPS permits submission of an already-formatted article (generated using LaTeX, R Markdown, or other methods) in addition to the pdf or Word version that must be submitted as the primary manuscript file. Authors who wish to submit an already-formatted article in addition to the primary manuscript can submit both the formatted (“knit”) document and the file used to generate it as supplementary files. Such formatted documents (e.g., R Notebooks) allow for a completely reproducible process that incorporates both the manuscript text and analyses within a single file.
Authors should provide access to working versions of any interactive demonstrations or tools (e.g., Shiny Apps, Tutorial videos). If the authors lack a way to host such content that would permit anonymous review, they should contact the editorial team before submission.
Authors of manuscripts with an unusually large number of authors, such as Registered Replication Reports or multi-lab articles, will be asked upon acceptance to provide a complete list of authors and their affiliations in a separate spreadsheet. A template for compiling this list 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.
All articles must include the following two sections immediately after the main text, before the reference section:
- Author Contributions: Authorship implies significant participation in the research reported or in writing the manuscript, including participation in designing and/or interpreting reported experiments or results, participation in acquiring and/or analyzing data, or 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. In complete sentences, authors should precisely describe their contributions to the research and manuscript, identifying each author by his or her initials and surname. For example: “D. J. Simons and A. O. Holcombe jointly generated the idea for the study. A. O. Holcombe programmed the study and collected the data. D. J. Simons wrote the analysis code and analyzed the data, and A. O. Holcombe verified the accuracy of those analyses. D. J. Simons wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and both authors critically edited it. Both authors approved the final submitted version of the manuscript.”
- Conflicts of Interest: Authors should identify any conflicts of interest in this section (and should also report them during the submission process). If authors have no conflicts of interest, they should state, “The author(s) declare that there were no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.”
All articles may also include the following sections after the main text and before the reference list, as appropriate:
- Acknowledgments: Authors should use this section to identify any people who should be credited for their assistance with the reported research.
- Funding: This section should be used to acknowledge funding sources, in complete sentences and with the full names of funders spelled out.
- Supplemental Material: If Supplemental Material will be posted on the journal’s Web site, include this heading and the appropriate link will be added during editing.
- Prior versions: If part or all of a submitted manuscript was previously posted to a blog or to a preprint archive, the authors should provide a link to that source and briefly indicate what aspects of the submitted manuscript are shared with that prior version.
All Empirical Articles, as well as any other article that is eligible for the Open Data, Open Materials, or Preregistration badge, must also include the following content in a separate Disclosures section immediately prior to the Method section:
- Preregistration: This subsection of the Disclosures section provides one or more links to any preregistration documentation. If only some of the reported studies were preregistered, this subsection should indicate which ones were and which ones were not.
- Data, materials, and online resources: This subsection provides one or more permanent, persisting links to a public archive (e.g., osf.io, perma.cc, clinicaltrials.gov) where readers can access any code, materials, de-identified data, or other resources . It should also refer to any Supplemental Material that will be posted on the journal’s Web site. If any materials or data are not publicly available, this paragraph should explain why and should note how researchers can access them for research purposes.
- Reporting: For all manuscripts reporting new empirical work, the text in this subsection 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 or not applicable, the authors should instead explain why (e.g., “This study involved an analysis of existing data rather than new data collection”). For studies not involving new empirical work, authors should verify that they have reported any and all simulations or other analyses they conducted as part of the work.
- Ethical approval: 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 (note that the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki requires preregistration before data collection begins). Authors reporting research involving nonhuman animal subjects should indicate whether institutional and national guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed. If ethical approval was not required, the reason should be given. Information that could identify subjects will not be published unless the information is necessary and written, informed consent is obtained.
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.