Use when preparing the transparency, open-science, and reproducibility materials for a Communication Research (CR) manuscript — data-availability statement, deposited data/code/materials, preregistration, and the restricted-data path. Prepares the materials; it does not waive requirements.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill commres-transparency-and-data --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Commres Transparency And Data?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-commres-transparency-and-data)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: commres-transparency-and-data
description: Use when preparing the transparency, open-science, and reproducibility materials for a Communication Research (CR) manuscript — data-availability statement, deposited data/code/materials, preregistration, and the restricted-data path. Prepares the materials; it does not waive requirements.
---
# Transparency & Data (commres-transparency-and-data)
CR is a quantitative, social-scientific journal, and its reviewers increasingly expect the materials
that let others scrutinize how the numbers were produced. SAGE supports a **data-availability
statement** and open-practices options; build the statement and supporting materials **as you write**
so submission and any open-practice claim go smoothly. Confirm the journal's current wording on the
SAGE author page (待核实 on exact policy).
## When to trigger
- Drafting the **data-availability statement**
- Deciding whether to share data, code, and materials, or to preregister
- Preparing a **preregistration** / pre-analysis plan for a prospective design (note it in the cover letter)
- Data cannot be fully shared (privacy, ethics, platform/legal restrictions) and you need the path forward
## What CR / SAGE expects (verify current wording on the policy page)
1. **Data-availability statement.** State where the data are (repository + identifier), under what
conditions they can be accessed, and — if they cannot be shared — **why**, with instructions for how
others might obtain them.
2. **Open practices (where pursued).**
- **Open data** — data and a codebook deposited in a trusted repository with a persistent identifier.
- **Open materials** — stimuli, instruments, scales, and code deposited so the study can be reproduced.
- **Preregistration** — a time-stamped, registered design/analysis plan; note it in the cover letter.
3. **Quantitative materials.** Data, code, codebook, scale items, and documentation sufficient to
regenerate every reported result; master script + README + pinned versions + seeds.
4. **ORCID and ethics.** Provide ORCID where requested; state IRB/ethics approval and informed consent;
for content analysis, deposit the codebook and intercoder-reliability report.
## When data cannot be shared (restricted-data path)
- **Explain why** in the data-availability statement (ethical/privacy concerns, platform terms of
service, or legal restrictions by the provider).
- Provide **instructions on how others can obtain the data** (access process, application, provider contact).
- Where possible, provide **synthetic or de-identified data** so the code can be run.
## Build-as-you-go checklist
- [ ] **Data-availability statement** drafted (repository, identifier, access conditions, or exemption)
- [ ] One **master script** regenerates **every** table and figure from raw/constructed data
- [ ] **README** documents data provenance, construction, and how to reproduce each exhibit
- [ ] **Seeds** set and reported for every stochastic step; software/package **versions pinned**
- [ ] Scales/stimuli/codebook deposited (open materials) where claimed
- [ ] Content analysis: codebook + intercoder-reliability report included
- [ ] Materials **anonymized** (no author-identifying paths/links) for double-anonymized review
## Transparency expectations by study type (decision table)
Match the deposit to the design rather than forcing one template:
| Study type | What a CR referee wants deposited | Open practice most relevant |
|------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| Experiment | data + codebook + stimuli + analysis script | open data + materials + preregistration |
| Survey / panel | data + scale items + analysis script + measurement model | open data + materials |
| Content analysis | codebook + coder instructions + reliability subsample + texts | open materials (+ open data) |
| Computational / text-as-data | corpus or query, model/version, seeds, **human-validation set** | open materials + open data |
For computational measures, the **human-validation set is itself the evidence** that the automated
label means what the paper claims — depositing the classifier without it leaves the construct unverified.
## Worked micro-example: a DAS for a copyrighted-news corpus (illustrative)
A computational content analysis of **40,000 news articles** (illustrative) hits a familiar wall: the
texts are copyrighted and the feed bars redistribution. The path: (1) deposit the **codebook, article
IDs/URLs, query parameters, and analysis code** so a same-license reader reproduces the pipeline; (2)
deposit the **human-validation sample** and shareable derived data; (3) write a data-availability
statement naming the restriction, provider, and access route, and offering **de-identified derived
features** (frame proportions per article) so modeling re-runs without raw text.
## Anti-patterns
- Treating the data-availability statement as an afterthought rather than a submission element
- Claiming an open-practice credit whose materials are not actually deposited or do not reproduce results
- A personal URL instead of a trusted repository with a persistent identifier
- Claiming data are restricted without giving an access path or synthetic substitute
- De-anonymizing the manuscript via an open-materials link during review
## Output format
```
【Data-availability statement】drafted? repository + identifier or exemption? [Y/N]
【Reproduces tables/figures?】master script verified locally? [Y/N]
【Open practices sought】open data / open materials / preregistration (materials staged?)
【Documentation】README + provenance + seeds + pinned versions? [Y/N]
【Restricted data?】exemption note + access path + synthetic data?
【Ethics/ORCID】IRB + consent stated; ORCID provided? [Y/N]
【Next】commres-review-process
```
## Supplementary resources
- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — reproducibility tooling and repositories (OSF, Dataverse, QDR)
- [`../../resources/code/`](../../resources/code/) — master-script + seed-discipline skeleton
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — data-availability and open-practices policy
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!