Jfi Replication And Data Policy

Replication & Data Policy (jfi-replication-and-data-policy)

When to trigger

• Preparing data/code materials before submitting or at acceptance
• Writing the Data Statement or handling restricted/proprietary banking data

What JFI actually requires (verified 2026-06-20; re-confirm on the official page)

JFI follows Elsevier Option C for research data. Research data here includes software, code, models, algorithms, protocols, and methods — not just datasets. Authors are required to:

• Deposit research data in a relevant repository and cite/link it, or explain why data cannot be shared.
• Provide a Data Statement on data availability when relevant; it is supported in the submission flow and published with the article.
• Cite datasets in the text and reference list using the [dataset] tag.

Crucially, JFI has no journal-specific mandatory replication-code archive — there is no equivalent of the Journal of Applied Econometrics Data Archive or the American Economic Review replication mandate. Do not invent a JFI-only archive requirement, but do treat deposit/cite/link-or-explain as the live Elsevier data-policy obligation.

How to prepare

• Empirical papers: write a clear Data Statement (sources, access conditions, what is shared); deposit shareable data and code in a general-purpose repository (Mendeley Data, Zenodo, ICPSR/openICPSR) and link it. For restricted bank/supervisory data (Call Reports extracts under license, FR Y-14, DealScan), state the access route and share the code plus any constructed, non-proprietary derivatives.
• Theory papers: lighter — share the code that generates numerical examples/figures so they are reproducible (fixed seeds/parameters); a Data Statement can note that no empirical data underlie the results.

Restricted banking data: the disclosure ladder

For the supervisory tier, the Data Statement should name the granting institution and the access route so a referee believes replication is possible in principle — credibility matters disproportionately at a venue where the best identification lives inside restricted registers. Repository specifics and any evolving Elsevier requirements: confirm against the journal's current author guidelines.

Worked Data Statement skeleton (credit-register paper, illustrative)

Data statement: Loan-level records are from the [country] credit register,
accessed on-site under agreement [ref]; they cannot leave the central bank.
We deposit: (i) all construction and estimation code; (ii) variable
definitions and sample filters; (iii) bank-level aggregates cleared for
release; (iv) instructions for applying for register access. Public inputs
(Call Reports, HMDA) are included in the repository. Datasets are cited
with [dataset] tags in the reference list.

Friction points editors and referees raise

• "Data available on request" with no named route reads as evasion — name the institution and process.
• Code that hard-codes paths inside the central-bank enclave — ship a config file and a README mapping enclave paths to placeholders.
• Cleared aggregates that cannot reproduce a single exhibit — clear at least the headline table's inputs.
• A theory paper claiming "no data" while its calibrated figures depend on undisclosed parameter files — the numerical-example code and parameter values are the reproducibility object at JFI.

Anti-patterns

• Treating Option C as optional or replacing it with "data available on request"
• Asserting a mandatory JFI-specific archive that the Guide does not name
• A Data Statement that hides restricted-data access conditions
• Citing datasets in prose without the [dataset] reference tag
• Depositing data but never linking it in Editorial Manager

Output format

【Data Statement】drafted, access conditions stated? [Y/N]
【Deposit / explain】repository chosen and linked in EM, or restriction explained? [Y/N]
【[dataset] tags】data cited in references? [Y/N]
【Restricted data】access route + shareable code noted? [Y/N]
【Note】Option C applies; no JFI-specific archive is named
【Next skill】jfi-review-process