Research Data, Code and Reporting Standards

JGTSS requires enough information for a reader to understand how evidence supports an article’s conclusions and for a qualified researcher to assess the analysis. Transparency is adapted to the research design. It does not require disclosure of confidential interview transcripts or sensitive locations merely to make a dataset openly downloadable.

Availability statement and evidence

Every research article, review and case study includes a data and materials availability statement. It identifies what evidence underlies the work, where accessible material can be found, the relevant persistent identifiers and any restrictions. A statement that data are available on request explains who can request access, the conditions, the responsible contact and any ethical or legal limits. If no dataset was generated or analyzed, the article explains the source materials on which its argument rests.

Where consent and rights permit, authors deposit supporting data, code, instruments, coding frameworks and relevant supplementary materials in a suitable repository before publication. They use a durable repository that provides stable identifiers and version information rather than a personal webpage likely to disappear. Public metadata can describe a restricted collection without exposing its contents. A data licence must be compatible with the rights held and must not imply permission to identify participants.

Reporting by method

Quantitative studies explain sampling, recruitment, exclusions, missingness, measurement, statistical models, software versions and uncertainty. Authors distinguish confirmatory plans from exploratory analyses and report deviations from preregistration where relevant. Computational or platform studies describe collection dates, access route, coverage limitations, transformations and analytical code sufficiently for a qualified reader to assess the claims.

Qualitative research describes the setting, selection of participants or materials, researcher positioning, coding or interpretive approach and how competing explanations were considered. Appropriate reporting standards may guide presentation, but an ethnography should not be forced into a clinical-trial template. Reviews explain search sources, dates, terms, selection criteria and synthesis methods; systematic and scoping reviews provide suitable flow information and reporting checklists. Historical or theoretical work identifies the evidential basis and the reasoning linking sources to conclusions.

Restricted access and verification

Authors may restrict access where openness would breach consent, privacy, safety, community governance, contractual obligations or third-party rights. They explain the specific barrier and consider lawful alternatives such as de-identified excerpts, synthetic demonstration data clearly labelled as such, controlled access or code operating on a documented structure. A commercial restriction that prevents meaningful editorial scrutiny may make a manuscript unsuitable for publication.

The handling editor may request supporting material or a confidential verification route during review or when a credible postpublication concern arises. Authors should retain the evidence and records needed to support the article for the period required by their institutions, funders and applicable rules, and identify a responsible custodian if they move. Errors in repositories or broken access arrangements should be reported promptly to jgtsseditorialoffice@jandoopress.com so that the article’s statement and linked record can be corrected.

Last updated: 16 September 2026