Use when assembling data and code for a Journal of Public Economics (JPubE) manuscript under Elsevier's Option C research-data framework — data-availability statements, repository deposit/citation/linking, restricted administrative data, and a reproducible package. It does not run the analysis.
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add thedixitjain/the-mega-skill-library --skill jpube-replication-and-data-policy --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Jpube Replication And Data Policy?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/thedixitjain-jpube-replication-and-data-policy)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: jpube-replication-and-data-policy
description: "Use when assembling data and code for a Journal of Public Economics (JPubE) manuscript under Elsevier's Option C research-data framework — data-availability statements, repository deposit/citation/linking, restricted administrative data, and a reproducible package. It does not run the analysis."
category: backend-and-data
source_repo: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
source_path: "Journal-of-Public-Economics-Skills/skills/jpube-replication-and-data-policy/SKILL.md"
source_url: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/Journal-of-Public-Economics-Skills/skills/jpube-replication-and-data-policy/SKILL.md
---
# Replication & Data Policy (jpube-replication-and-data-policy)
## When to trigger
- You are preparing a data-availability statement or research-data declaration
- Your results rest on restricted tax/health/register data and you must document access
- You want a reproducible package that pre-empts referee replication requests
- You need to choose between repository deposit and a restricted-data access statement
## JPubE / Elsevier requirement
JPubE's Guide for Authors applies Elsevier **Option C** research-data instructions: deposit research
data in a relevant repository, cite and link the dataset in the article, or provide a statement
explaining why research data cannot be shared. For public-economics work using restricted tax, health,
or register microdata, the practical route is usually a data statement plus a code package and exact
access path rather than public release of protected rows.
## Build the package around Option C
Public-economics referees frequently ask to see the elasticity/bunching/RD pipeline, so build a clean
package around the data route:
- **Data-availability statement** matching reality: open data -> link the repository; restricted
tax/health/register data -> state the access path, the agency, and why microdata cannot be shared.
- **Dataset citation/linking.** Cite open datasets in the reference list with repository, version, year,
persistent identifier, and the `[dataset]` marker where applicable.
- **Programs even when microdata are proprietary.** Supply all cleaning and estimation code so the
workflow is auditable even if IRS/SSA/CMS or register microdata cannot leave the enclave.
- **Disclosure compliance.** Document cell-size suppression and output-clearance for restricted data;
never embed suppressed cells in shared outputs.
- **One master script** (`run_all`) regenerating every table and figure from inputs; pin
software/package versions (`renv.lock`, `requirements.txt`, recorded `ssc` versions); set and report
seeds for bootstrap / randomization inference.
- **README** mapping each exhibit to the script that produces it.
## Checklist
- [ ] Data-availability statement drafted and consistent with the data used
- [ ] Open data deposited, cited, and linked; restricted data explained with access path
- [ ] Restricted-data access path, agency, and sharing limits documented
- [ ] All cleaning + estimation programs supplied (even if microdata are restricted)
- [ ] Disclosure / cell-suppression compliance documented for shared outputs
- [ ] `run_all` master script regenerates all exhibits; versions and seeds pinned
- [ ] README maps exhibits -> scripts
- [ ] Current JPubE/Elsevier data fields checked in Editorial Manager before upload
## Anti-patterns
- Treating Option C as optional boilerplate rather than a repository link or a concrete reason data
cannot be shared
- A data-availability statement that does not match what was actually used
- Sharing restricted-data outputs without documented disclosure clearance
- A package with no master script, unpinned versions, or unreported seeds
## Data-availability routing by source
Public-finance papers lean on restricted microdata more than most fields, so the availability statement
is rarely "open repository." Route by what you actually used.
| Data source | Availability statement says | What you still ship |
|-------------|------------------------------|----------------------|
| Public tax/SOI tabulations, survey extracts | Link repository (Mendeley/openICPSR/Zenodo) and cite dataset | Data + all code |
| IRS/SSA/CMS enclave microdata | Access path + agency + why microdata cannot leave | All cleaning + estimation code |
| European whole-population registers | Application route, custodian, approval ID | Code + non-disclosive aggregates |
| Mixed (public + restricted) | Split the statement by component | Repository for the open part, access note otherwise |
## Worked vignette: a register-DID package referees can trust
A social-insurance reform evaluated on a national register cannot share person-level rows. The package
still makes the DID pipeline auditable: `run_all` regenerates every exhibit from cleared aggregates; the
README maps Table 3 (the moral-hazard wedge) and Figure 2 (the event study) to their scripts;
`renv.lock` pins versions; the bootstrap seed is fixed so the SEs on the **MVPF = 1.4** statistic
(illustrative) replicate. The availability statement names the custodian, the approval ID, and the
cell-suppression rule (min count 10), so a referee sees the workflow without touching protected
microdata.
## Calibration anchors
- The reproducibility bar a JPubE referee imagines: could a second analyst, given the same authorized
access, rebuild every elasticity/MVPF/bunching number? Code completeness and exact access
documentation are what you control.
- Option C is about deposit/citation/linking or a sharing explanation; it is not the same as promising a
named AEA-style data-editor code run.
## Output format
```
【Data type】open / restricted-administrative / register / mixed
【Availability statement】drafted + consistent? [Y/N]
【Restricted access】path + agency + limits documented? [Y/N]
【Programs supplied】all cleaning + estimation code? [Y/N]
【Reproducibility】run_all + pinned versions + seeds? [Y/N]
【Policy check】Option C route and Editorial Manager data fields checked? [Y/N]
【Next step】jpube-review-process
```
---
**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Journal-of-Public-Economics-Skills/skills/jpube-replication-and-data-policy/SKILL.md`
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!