Use when assembling the data and code deposit for a European Economic Review (EER) manuscript under Elsevier's mandatory replication policy. Builds a reproducible package and README; it does not run the analysis or write the paper.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill eer-replication-package --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Eer Replication Package?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-eer-replication-package)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: eer-replication-package
description: Use when assembling the data and code deposit for a European Economic Review (EER) manuscript under Elsevier's mandatory replication policy. Builds a reproducible package and README; it does not run the analysis or write the paper.
---
# Replication Package (eer-replication-package)
## When to trigger
- The paper contains empirical work, simulations, or experiments
- Results are stabilizing and the deposit should be assembled (not at the last minute)
- Preparing for acceptance, when the replication materials must be provided
- A referee or editor asks about data/code availability
## The EER replication bar
EER operates a **mandatory replication policy**: authors of accepted papers with empirical, simulation, or experimental content must provide, **prior to publication**, the **data, programs, and computational details sufficient to permit replication** of the reported results (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准). Elsevier's data-and-code availability framework applies; deposits typically go to a repository (e.g., **Mendeley Data** / Zenodo) and are linked from the article. Re-confirm on the official EER policy page whether there is **pre-acceptance verification by a data editor**, the exact deposit location, and the handling of restricted data — do **not** assert a verification step or repository that the current policy does not state. Build the package **as you go** so the deposit is not a scramble at acceptance.
## What to assemble
### Data
- **Raw data** (or, for restricted data, the access path + a data-availability statement explaining how a replicator obtains it).
- **Intermediate/analysis files** with a clear lineage from raw to final.
- A **data dictionary / codebook** for constructed variables.
- A **data-availability statement** matching what the article claims.
### Code
- **One master script** (`run_all`) that regenerates **every table and figure** from raw data.
- Scripts ordered and numbered (clean → construct → analyze → exhibits).
- **Pinned environment**: package versions recorded (`requirements.txt`/`conda` for Python, `renv.lock` for R, recorded Stata `ssc`/`net` versions; `Project.toml`/`Manifest.toml` for Julia).
- **Seeds set and reported** for simulation / bootstrap / randomization inference.
### Documentation (README)
- Software + versions; hardware/runtime notes; expected outputs mapped to **specific tables/figures**.
- Any **partial-reproduction scope** (e.g., confidential data) stated honestly.
- License for the code; data-use terms respected.
## Checklist
- [ ] `run_all` master script regenerates every reported table and figure from raw data
- [ ] Raw + intermediate data included, or a clear restricted-data access path given
- [ ] Data dictionary / codebook for constructed variables
- [ ] Environment pinned (language + package versions recorded)
- [ ] Seeds set and reported for all stochastic steps
- [ ] README maps each script/output to specific exhibits; runtime noted
- [ ] Data-availability statement matches the article and the deposit
- [ ] Deposit location confirmed against the current EER/Elsevier policy (检索于 2026-06)
- [ ] Restricted/proprietary data handled per policy; partial-repro scope documented
## Anti-patterns
- Leaving the package to acceptance week — it controls the publication timeline
- A code dump with no master script and no mapping from output to exhibits
- Unpinned environments ("it ran on my laptop") that a replicator cannot reproduce
- Unset seeds making simulation/bootstrap results non-reproducible
- A data-availability statement that overclaims what is actually deposited
- Asserting a data-editor verification step or repository not stated in the current policy
## Worked vignette (illustrative)
An applied-micro paper ships a single `.zip`: `00_run_all.do`, numbered `01_clean` → `05_tables`, a `data/raw` folder with a public extract plus a documented access path for the confidential employer–employee link, an `renv`-style version log of Stata packages, seeds fixed in the bootstrap, and a README mapping every do-file to the table/figure it produces and noting the confidential-data partial-reproduction scope. At acceptance the deposit goes to the repository the policy specifies and the article links it.
## Output format
```
【Content】empirical / simulation / experimental (replication policy applies)
【Master script】run_all regenerates all exhibits? [Y/N]
【Data】raw included OR restricted-access path documented? [Y/N]
【Environment】versions pinned + seeds set/reported? [Y/N]
【README】outputs mapped to exhibits + partial-repro scope? [Y/N]
【Deposit】location confirmed vs current policy (检索于 2026-06)? [Y/N]
【Next step】eer-referee-strategy or eer-submission
```
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!