Spq Data And Transparency

---
name: spq-data-and-transparency
description: "Use when preparing the data, materials, and transparency posture for a Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) manuscript. SPQ ENCOURAGES sharing data, code, and materials but does NOT require it, and willingness to share has no impact on acceptance; the journal follows the ASA data-sharing norm and Code of Ethics. Covers quantitative and qualitative/interpretive transparency and confidentiality. Prepares the posture; it does not invent requirements."
category: backend-and-data
source_repo: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
source_path: "Social-Psychology-Quarterly-Skills/skills/spq-data-and-transparency/SKILL.md"
source_url: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/Social-Psychology-Quarterly-Skills/skills/spq-data-and-transparency/SKILL.md
---


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

SPQ's posture is deliberately different from open-data-mandate journals. It **encourages** researchers to
make data, code, and materials available, but **this is not a requirement**, and **willingness to publicly
release data and materials has no impact on the likelihood of acceptance**. The journal recognizes that not
all areas of social psychology — especially ethnographic and interview work — can share data practically
or ethically. Transparency at SPQ means clear documentation and honoring the **ASA data-sharing norm**,
not a verified replication gate.

## When to trigger

- Deciding what data/code/materials to share, and how to describe your transparency posture
- Confidential or sensitive data (fieldnotes, interview transcripts, restricted survey data)
- A reviewer asked about materials, measures, or replicability
- Writing the data-availability and ethics language

## What SPQ actually asks (verify current wording on the policy page)

1. **Encouraged, not required.** SPQ encourages open data, code, and materials so others can review and
   use them — but does not require it, and **non-sharing does not lower acceptance odds**. Do not write as
   if it were a gate; do not over-claim "open" materials you cannot release.
2. **ASA data-sharing norm.** As a regular practice, sociologists share data and documentation as part of
   a research plan and **generally make data available after a project's completion or major
   publications**, except where proprietary agreements preclude it or where **confidentiality of
   participants cannot otherwise be protected** (e.g., fieldnotes, detailed ethnographic interviews).
3. **Quantitative materials (if shared).** Data, code, and documentation sufficient to regenerate reported
   results: master script + README + pinned versions + seeds + scale items.
4. **Qualitative / interpretive transparency.** You generally **cannot** share raw fieldnotes or interview
   transcripts; instead document the analytic process — sampling/site logic, coding scheme, and enough
   excerpts for readers to judge — and protect participant confidentiality.

## Confidentiality & ethics

- Protect participants: de-identify, aggregate, or withhold where re-identification is a risk.
- Honor IRB/consent terms and any data-provider restrictions; say so plainly if data cannot be shared.
- Submitting the same manuscript elsewhere while under SPQ review is unethical; flag prior appearance of
  significant findings.

## Good-practice checklist (not a mandate)

- [ ] Decide and state a clear, honest **data-availability posture** (what you can/can't share and why)
- [ ] If sharing quantitative materials: master script regenerates tables/figures; README; seeds; pinned versions
- [ ] If interpretive: document sampling/site logic and coding; provide representative excerpts; protect confidentiality
- [ ] Scale items / measures documented (in text or supplementary materials)
- [ ] Ethics/IRB and confidentiality handled per ASA Code of Ethics
- [ ] Preregistration linked (anonymized) where you used it — useful but not required

## Anti-patterns

- Writing as though SPQ mandates open data, or implying sharing buys acceptance (it does not)
- Claiming data are "available" when consent/confidentiality actually preclude release
- No documentation of measures or analytic procedure at all
- Exposing participant identities to perform "transparency"
- Treating qualitative transparency as impossible and so documenting nothing

## Output format

```
【Posture】what data/code/materials will (or will not) be shared, and why
【Encouraged-not-required understood?】[Y/N]
【Quantitative (if shared)】master script + README + seeds + measures? [Y/N/NA]
【Qualitative transparency】sampling/coding documented + confidentiality protected? [Y/N/NA]
【Ethics/IRB + ASA norm honored】[Y/N]
【Next】spq-review-process
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — reproducibility tooling and CAQDAS for documented interpretive work
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — SPQ data-and-materials statement + ASA data-sharing policy

---

**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Social-Psychology-Quarterly-Skills/skills/spq-data-and-transparency/SKILL.md`