Outside experts said that the new rules were a good first step, but nothing more.

“Look, any steps in this direction that even recognize this problem are good ones,” said Dr. Ivan Oransky, an editor of the blog Retraction Watch and editorial director of MedPage Today. “But the proof will be in the pudding, in whether journals actually hold scientists’ feet to the fire.”

The guidelines include eight categories of disclosure, each with three levels of ascending stringency. For example, under the category “data transparency,” Level 1 has the journal require that articles state whether data is available, and if so, where. Level 2 requires that the data be posted to a trusted databank. Level 3 requires not only that data be posted, but also that the analysis be redone by an independent group before publication.

The “data” in question varies depending on the field and the methods. So-called raw data from social science studies — survey answers, for instance, stripped of any personal information — are easily cached and understood. Not so raw readouts from genetic analysis or magnetic resonance imaging recordings, which take up enormous digital capacity.

That is one reason the guidelines also include a category called “analytic methods transparency.” In Level 1, scientists are called on to declare whether the code they used to analyze all those bites of raw data is available, and if so where; Level 3 would require the code be posted in a databank and the reported analysis reproduced before publication.

The guidelines also call for, among other things, “preregistration” of studies: that is, that an outline of study methods, design and hypotheses be posted before the work is carried out. This kind of requirement makes little sense in some fields like geosciences in which investigators rush to study the effects of Hurricane Sandy, for instance. But it should serve as a check against the so-called file-drawer problem that has plagued social sciences and others, in which authors report only versions of a study that produce strong results, not ones with weak or null findings, Dr. Nosek said.

Preregistration is the law for most clinical drug trials, and it is already done by many social scientists.