Asr Data And Transparency

---
name: asr-data-and-transparency
description: "Use when handling data documentation, sharing, and confidentiality for an American Sociological Review (ASR) manuscript. ASR follows the ASA data-sharing policy — share data and documentation after a project's completion or major publications, with confidentiality and proprietary exemptions — rather than a mandatory editor-verified replication deposit. Prepares documentation; it does not over-state requirements."
category: backend-and-data
source_repo: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
source_path: "American-Sociological-Review-Skills/skills/asr-data-and-transparency/SKILL.md"
source_url: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/American-Sociological-Review-Skills/skills/asr-data-and-transparency/SKILL.md
---


# Data & Transparency (asr-data-and-transparency)

ASR's transparency expectations follow the **ASA data-sharing policy**, which is a professional norm
of **availability** — not (as at some journals) a mandatory, editor-run reproducibility check before
publication. The right posture is: document thoroughly, share what you ethically can, and be explicit
about confidentiality. **Confirm the current supplementary-materials policy on the live page** —
this skill does not assert a verification step the policy does not state.

## When to trigger

- Preparing data documentation and any supplementary materials
- Deciding what can be shared given confidentiality, IRB, or proprietary constraints
- Documenting qualitative or restricted-access data so claims are credible
- A reviewer asked how others could check or build on your analysis

## What the ASA data-sharing policy says (verify current wording)

- Sociologists **share data and pertinent documentation as an integral part of a research plan** and
  **generally make data available after completion of a project or its major publications**.
- **Exemptions**: where proprietary agreements with employers, contractors, or clients preclude
  sharing, or where it is **impossible to share data and protect the confidentiality** of research
  participants.
- Submitting a manuscript elsewhere while under ASR review is **unethical**; findings that already
  appeared elsewhere must be **clearly identified**.

## Good practice (do this even though ASR doesn't pre-verify)

- **Document provenance and construction.** A README/codebook describing sources, sample
  construction, variable definitions, and analysis steps — so the work is checkable.
- **Quantitative**: keep a master script + pinned versions + seeds so results can be regenerated; be
  ready to share code even if restricted data cannot be redistributed (give an access path).
- **Qualitative**: protect informants — anonymize, aggregate, or restrict sensitive material;
  consider a controlled-access repository (e.g., QDR) where appropriate; share what supports the
  claims without exposing participants.
- **Confidentiality first.** Human-subjects protection overrides sharing; state clearly when and why
  data cannot be shared, and what *can* (synthetic data, code, documentation).

## Transparency posture by data type (ASR / ASA norm)

Because ASR spans the discipline's methodological range under one ASA ethics umbrella, the
*availability* expectation lands differently on different evidence. This grid keeps the posture honest.
**Confirm specifics against the journal's current submission guidelines** where mechanics are involved.

| Data type | Typically shareable | Restricted | Credibility documentation |
|-----------|---------------------|------------|----------------------------|
| Public-use survey | data + code | none | codebook + master script + pinned versions |
| Administrative | code + access path | raw records | enclave/DUA reference, construction log |
| In-depth interviews | coding scheme | identifiable transcripts | anonymized excerpt table, memo trail |
| Ethnographic fieldnotes | analytic memos | informant identities | composite-disclosure note, IRB conditions |
| Computational / scraped | code + seeds | TOS-restricted corpora | model/version log, label validation |

## Worked micro-example (illustrative)

A comparative-historical paper on welfare-state formation draws on national archives plus a coded
events dataset.

```
Shareable: the coded events table (N≈430), coding rules, replication script for the figures
Restricted: archival scans → cite finding aids + box/folder IDs instead
Credibility move: an evidence table maps each causal claim to ≥2 independent archival sources
Statement to editor: "Coded data + code deposited; archival images available to qualified
  researchers via [repository] under its access terms."
```

The posture shares what supports the claims, documents provenance, and is explicit about what cannot
be redistributed and why.

## Referee pushback → ASR-specific fix

- *"How could anyone verify the qualitative claims?"* → Provide a coding scheme, an excerpt-to-claim
  table, and a controlled-access route (e.g., QDR) rather than raw transcripts.
- *"You promise open data but the IRB forbids it."* → State the confidentiality constraint and offer
  synthetic data, code, and a documented access path.

## Calibration anchors

- **Availability, not editor-run replication.** ASR expects professional sharing after completion or
  major publication — not a pre-publication verification gate; do not assert one.
- **Confidentiality outranks sharing.** Human-subjects protection wins any conflict; documenting *why*
  data are withheld is itself a credibility signal.
- **Document so a generalist could follow.** The standard is a stranger in another subfield tracing
  your evidence.

## Anti-patterns

- Over-stating ASR's policy as a mandatory verified replication deposit (it is a sharing *norm*)
- Promising open data that IRB/confidentiality will not allow
- No codebook or documentation, making the analysis uncheckable
- Exposing identifiable information about ethnographic informants
- Submitting elsewhere while under ASR review (unethical)

## Output format

```
【Sharing posture】what can be shared (data / code / docs / synthetic) and what cannot, and why
【Documentation】README/codebook + provenance + (quant) seeds/pinned versions? [Y/N]
【Confidentiality】informant/participant protection handled? [Y/N]
【Prior appearance】any overlapping findings identified? [Y/N]
【Policy check】current ASR supplementary-materials policy confirmed? [Y/N/待核实]
【Next】asr-review-process
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — reproducibility tooling and controlled-access options (QDR)
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — ASA data-sharing policy and ethics

---

**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `American-Sociological-Review-Skills/skills/asr-data-and-transparency/SKILL.md`