This will depend on the context of the code, but JavaScript has a common design practice for encapsulating variables and methods in a namespace or module template. This code may be derived from this intention.
The rationale for the module design pattern comes down to complications with global variables and the dangers of "knocking down."
Clobbering can occur when any variable (or function) with the same name is defined twice. The second definition will override the first and, in essence, will hide it.
Thus, a rule of thumb is to wrap your code in a construct that protects your variables (and functions) from the global namespace. Douglas Crockford describes these scenarios well.
This example shows a slightly more common embodiment called "closure":
var jspy = (function() { var _count = 0; return { incrementCount: function() { _count++; }, getCount: function() { return _count; } }; })();
At first he is disoriented, but as soon as you recognize him, he becomes second nature. The point is to encapsulate the _count variable as a private member in the returned object, which has two methods available.
This is powerful because the global namespace now includes only one var (jspy), not one with two methods. The second reason this is powerful is because it ensures that the _count variable can only be accessed by logic in two methods (incrementCount, getCount).
As I said, your code may be the embodiment of this rule of thumb.
In any case, it is important to know this template in JavaScript, because it opens the door to much more powerful interactions between frameworks, for example, and asynchronously loading them, for example, into AMD.
Here is a good namespace example.
In summation, there is an extended JavaScript design pattern that will help you find out, and the corresponding terms are a module pattern, a namespace pattern. Additional related terms are closure and AMD.
Hope this helps. All the best! Nash