Ensuring Transparency and Trust in Supervised-Machine-Learning Studies: A Checklist for Psychological Researchers

Hanyi Min et al.

Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science (AMPPS)2026https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459261419816article
AJG 2
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Machine-learning (ML) algorithms are being rapidly incorporated into the work of psychologists given their capability and flexibility in analyzing large-scale, complex, or otherwise messy data sets. In this context and in the spirit of open science, ML research should be conducted in a transparent, understandable, and ethical manner. However, publications by psychology researchers and practitioners show a troubling lack of consistency in reporting ML information. Given that ML offers a wide range of analytical options, in this article, we address an important need by providing a comprehensive, open-science checklist that specifies the information researchers should disclose at each stage of a supervised-ML project—from data collection and preprocessing to model selection, evaluation, interpretation, and code sharing. We hope that psychological researchers will benefit from this checklist when reporting ML results and will adapt and extend this checklist further in the future.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459261419816

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{hanyi2026,
  title        = {{Ensuring Transparency and Trust in Supervised-Machine-Learning Studies: A Checklist for Psychological Researchers}},
  author       = {Hanyi Min et al.},
  journal      = {Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science (AMPPS)},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459261419816},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Ensuring Transparency and Trust in Supervised-Machine-Learning Studies: A Checklist for Psychological Researchers

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.