Use when preparing the transparency, reporting, and data-availability materials for an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript. AERJ expects work to meet the AERA Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research (quantitative + qualitative) and the AERA Code of Ethics expectations on making data available. Prepares the materials; it does not waive requirements.
Scanned 6/4/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aerj-transparency-and-data-policy --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Aerj Transparency And Data Policy?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-aerj-transparency-and-data-policy)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: aerj-transparency-and-data-policy
description: Use when preparing the transparency, reporting, and data-availability materials for an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript. AERJ expects work to meet the AERA Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research (quantitative + qualitative) and the AERA Code of Ethics expectations on making data available. Prepares the materials; it does not waive requirements.
---
# Transparency & Data Policy (aerj-transparency-and-data-policy)
AERJ is an AERA journal: it expects reporting that is **warranted** and **transparent**, per the **AERA
reporting standards**, and adherence to the **AERA Code of Ethics**, which expects authors to make data
available for reanalysis after publication (within confidentiality and legal limits). Build
transparency in as you write, not after acceptance.
## When to trigger
- Aligning the manuscript with the AERA reporting standards
- Planning data/code availability and documentation
- Human-subjects data that cannot be fully shared (privacy, IRB, provider restrictions)
- A qualitative or mixed-methods study where transparency means more than a dataset
## What to satisfy (verify current wording on the official pages)
1. **Reporting standards.** Meet the **AERA Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science
Research** — adequate evidence (warrant) and explicit logic of inquiry (transparency), for **both
quantitative and qualitative** work. Humanities-oriented work follows the companion 2009 standards.
2. **Data availability.** Per the AERA Code of Ethics, be prepared to **share data and the basis of
interpretations** for reanalysis after results are published, subject to participant confidentiality
and legal/IRB limits. Document provenance and construction.
3. **Quantitative materials.** Data (or access path), code, and documentation sufficient to regenerate
reported results: master script + README + pinned versions + seeds.
4. **Qualitative transparency.** Make the analytic process inspectable — coding scheme, exemplar
evidence, audit trail, reflexivity — rather than dumping raw transcripts. QDR supports controlled
access where raw data are sensitive.
## When data cannot be shared
- **Explain why** (human-subjects confidentiality, IRB constraints, or data-provider restrictions such
as state SLDS / district agreements).
- Give **access instructions** (application process, provider contact, restricted-use license).
- Where feasible, provide **synthetic or de-identified data** so analysis code can be exercised.
## Build-as-you-go checklist
- [ ] Reporting matches the AERA standard appropriate to the method (quant / qual)
- [ ] **Master script** regenerates every table/figure (quant) or analytic process documented (qual)
- [ ] **README**: provenance, construction, how to reproduce/inspect each exhibit
- [ ] **Seeds** set; software/package **versions pinned**
- [ ] Restricted data: rationale + access path + synthetic/de-identified substitute where feasible
- [ ] IRB/consent and confidentiality protections documented
- [ ] Preregistration / pre-analysis plan linked (anonymized) where applicable
## Anti-patterns
- Treating transparency as a post-acceptance afterthought
- "Data available on request" with no documented process or scope
- Dumping raw qualitative data instead of an inspectable analytic trail
- Claiming restriction without an access path or de-identified substitute
- Undocumented, un-seeded, unpinned code that "works on my machine"
## Output format
```
【Reporting standard met】empirical-social-science (quant/qual)? [Y/N]
【Data availability】shareable / access-path / synthetic? [which]
【Documentation】README + provenance + seeds + pinned versions? [Y/N]
【Qualitative transparency】coding + evidence + audit trail + reflexivity? [Y/N/NA]
【Restricted data】rationale + access + substitute?
【Next】aerj-review-process
```
## Supplementary resources
- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — reproducibility tooling, QDR, preregistration registries
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — AERA reporting standards + Code of Ethics
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!