It would depend on the context of the code, but there is a common design practice in JavaScript to encapsulate variables and methods within a Namespace or Module Pattern.
This code may be a derivative of that intent.
The reasoning behind the Module Design Pattern boils down to complications with global variables and the dangers of 'clobbering'.
Clobbering can occur when any variable (or function) of the same name is defined twice. The second definition will override the first, and in essence clobber it.
Thus, it is a rule of thumb to wrap your code in a construct that shields your variables (and functions) from the global namespace. Douglas Crockford describes these type of scenarios well.
This example shows a slightly more common incarnation called 'closure':
var jspy = (function() {
var _count = 0;
return {
incrementCount: function() {
_count++;
},
getCount: function() {
return _count;
}
};
})();
It is disorienting at first, but once you recognize it, it becomes second nature. The point is to encapsulate the _count variable as a private member to the returned object which has two accessible methods.
This is powerful because the global namespace now only includes one var (jspy) as opposed to one with two methods. The second reason that it is powerful is that it guarantees the _count variable can only be accessed by the logic in the two methods (incrementCount, getCount).
As I said, your code may be an incarnation of this rule of thumb.
Either way it is important to know this pattern in JavaScript because it opens the door to much more powerful interactions between frameworks, for example, and in asynchronous loading of them such as in AMD.
Here is a nice namespace example.
In summation, there is an advanced JavaScript Design Pattern that will help you to know, and the relevant terms are Module Pattern, Namespace Pattern. Additional associated terms are closure and AMD.
Hope that helps.
All the best!
Nash