***Follow the live-updating minutes of activities and discussions of this hack in [this Google doc][1]*** Room 317 Journal editors and publication boards have substantial power to promote transparency because typically they have great latitude in setting standards for their journals. More and more journals are adopting innovations such as badges that highlight articles for which data and materials are freely available to other researchers or for which the research plan was preregistered. Journal editors can also, for example, require authors to make their data available to reviewers or explain why that cannot be done. And they can adopt Registered Reports as a submission option. We will work on ways of reaching out to individual editors and to professional societies to encourage such steps. How can we identify targets of persuasive messages? How should we craft those messages? What are the biggest obstacles in editors' and boards' minds? What can we do to make it easier for editors to take such steps (e.g., practical offerings such as boilerplate for letters inviting reviews of RRs)? How can journals assess/enforce adherence to quality standards (e.g., clear data documentation and well-specified pre-registrations)? We aim grapple with these and related questions and then to at least begin to implement steps to ward these goals during SIPS. It is likely that work on implementation will continue beyond the meeting, for those who willing/able to do so. [1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17HBYtpvBezpcT5AeIJSy5PLXqQ-48itsVuNwjDJ7tQI/edit?usp=sharing