Replication & Data Policy (jhr-replication-and-data-policy)
When to trigger
- The paper is being prepared for JHR submission or acceptance
- You need the archive-plan footnote, Data Availability Statement, or waiver
- Data are restricted, proprietary, administrative, or RCT-based
JHR policy core
JHR's data policy is unusually concrete: accepted papers must preserve data and
post replication materials in a well-curated public repository where possible,
with a public-domain CC0 1.0 Universal license. At submission, include an archive
plan footnote with a persistent link if available, or request a waiver at initial
submission.
Package contents
- Data files that can legally be shared
- Code and models needed to reproduce all tables and figures
- Read-me file explaining the sequence
- Data Availability Statement on the title page
- Restricted-data access instructions or waiver justification
- For RCTs: pre-analysis plan registration and deviations
Acceptance-stage replication gate
Do not wait until conditional acceptance to discover that the archive cannot be
built. Run this gate before initial submission and again when the paper enters
revision.
| Gate |
Pass condition |
Blocker to surface early |
| Exhibit inventory |
Every main-text and appendix table/figure maps to one script and one input dataset |
Hand-built table, untracked spreadsheet edit, or private intermediate file |
| Data rights |
Each dataset is classified public, restricted, proprietary, confidential, or author-generated |
No redistribution right or unclear crosswalk ownership |
| Repository plan |
Public repository path, DOI plan, CC0 posture, and embargo/waiver status recorded |
Deposit location or license undecided |
| Code portability |
A clean clone runs from raw/public inputs or approved restricted mount points |
Absolute paths, local user directories, hidden credentials |
| Reviewer audit trail |
Read-me explains what a referee can reproduce now and what requires restricted access |
DAS promises more than the archive can deliver |
Waiver logic
Request a waiver at initial submission when data cannot be publicly deposited.
State how other researchers can obtain the data and commit to provide reasonable
guidance.
Waiver evidence test
A waiver is not a reason to ship a thin package. Before asking for one, prepare
evidence that the non-public data barrier is real and that the reproducibility
route remains usable.
| Question |
Strong answer |
Weak answer |
| Why can the data not be posted? |
Contract, statute, IRB term, license, or agency rule named in plain language |
"Confidential" without a source |
| How can another researcher apply? |
Agency/vendor/contact path, application steps, and expected constraints |
"Contact the authors" only |
| What can still be checked? |
Code, dictionary, synthetic data, logs, exhibit map, and public-source rebuild scripts |
PDF tables only |
| What does the DAS say? |
Same access route and limits as the footnote and read-me |
DAS, footnote, and read-me disagree |
Restricted-data package
When the data cannot be public, still prepare:
- synthetic or public-use data that exercises every script path when possible;
- data dictionary with variable construction and source tables;
- access instructions, application links, and approval constraints;
- log showing which outputs require restricted data;
- archive-plan footnote explaining the waiver and reproducibility route.
Deposit decisions by data source
| Data source |
What can usually be deposited |
Waiver posture |
| Public-use surveys (CPS, ACS, NLSY, PSID extracts) |
Extraction code plus the analysis file, or code that rebuilds it from raw downloads |
Rarely needed; check redistribution terms of each survey |
| State administrative records (UI wages, K-12, Medicaid) |
Code, codebooks, aggregate exhibits; microdata stays with the agency |
Waiver expected; document the access route precisely |
| Own RCT microdata |
De-identified analysis files under CC0 where consent and IRB allow |
Partial waiver for identifying fields; PAP registration stated |
| Proprietary/commercial data |
Code, pseudo-data, purchase or license instructions |
Waiver with a named acquisition path |
| Linked or matched files |
Each source assessed separately; the crosswalk is often the binding constraint |
Mixed: deposit what is public, waiver the link keys |
Repository choice and licensing details evolve — confirm against the journal's
current author guidelines before depositing.
Exhibit-to-script map
The read-me should include a compact manifest. This is the fastest way to catch
irreproducible tables before upload.
| Exhibit |
Output file |
Producing script |
Data requirement |
Notes |
| Table 1 |
tables/table1_balance.tex |
03_tables/table1_balance.do |
public-use extract |
Rebuilds from raw survey download |
| Figure 2 |
figures/event_study.pdf |
04_figures/event_study.R |
restricted admin file |
Runs only on approved secure machine |
| Appendix Table A4 |
tables/a4_placebo.tex |
05_appendix/placebo.py |
synthetic test + restricted file |
Synthetic version verifies code path |
Use the actual filenames from the project. If an exhibit has no producing
script, treat that as a package defect, not a documentation detail.
Worked waiver scenario: UI wage records
Illustrative case: earnings outcomes come from one state's unemployment-insurance
wage records under a data-use agreement that bars any microdata release.
- Footnote at submission: names the agency, the agreement, and states that
code, codebooks, and a synthetic test file will be archived under CC0.
- The read-me lists the application steps and typical approval constraints a
replicator faces, and which exhibits need the restricted extract.
- Every script runs against the synthetic file end-to-end so reviewers can
verify logic without the data.
- The Data Availability Statement mirrors the footnote — the two must not
drift apart between submission and acceptance.
Read-me skeleton for the JHR archive
README
1. Data sources & access (public files included; restricted: how to apply)
2. Software & versions (Stata/R/Python; packages pinned)
3. Run order: 00_master -> 01_clean -> 02_analysis -> 03_exhibits
4. Runtime & hardware notes; random seeds fixed where used
5. Exhibit map: each table/figure -> producing script -> data requirement
6. License: CC0 1.0 Universal (data and code deposited)
Pre-acceptance dry run
- Clone the package to a clean directory and run it without manual edits.
- Confirm every main-text and appendix exhibit regenerates byte-stable or with
documented stochastic variation.
- Check that no intermediate file under a restrictive license leaks into the
deposit.
- Compare the archive footnote, Data Availability Statement, waiver request,
read-me, and repository landing page for identical access claims.
- Save the run log and unresolved exceptions in the project archive before
acceptance, so the team can fix blockers before production deadlines.
Output format
[Data status] public / restricted / proprietary / confidential / mixed
[Archive plan footnote] ...
[DAS] ...
[Waiver needed] yes/no + reason
[Replication gate] exhibit map / data rights / repository plan / code portability / audit trail
[Restricted-data route] public deposit / partial waiver / full waiver + access path
[Dry-run result] clean / stochastic differences documented / blocked
[RCT PAP status] ...
[Next step] jhr-submission
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Journal-of-Human-Resources-Skills/skills/jhr-replication-and-data-policy/SKILL.md
1---2name: jhr-replication-and-data-policy3description: Use when preparing Journal of Human Resources data and replication materials: archive plan footnote, public repository deposit, CC0 license, Data Availability Statement, read-me file, waiver requests, RCT pre-analysis-plan statements, and code package.4---567# Replication & Data Policy (jhr-replication-and-data-policy)89## When to trigger1011- The paper is being prepared for JHR submission or acceptance12- You need the archive-plan footnote, Data Availability Statement, or waiver13- Data are restricted, proprietary, administrative, or RCT-based1415## JHR policy core1617JHR's data policy is unusually concrete: accepted papers must preserve data and18post replication materials in a well-curated public repository where possible,19with a public-domain CC0 1.0 Universal license. At submission, include an archive20plan footnote with a persistent link if available, or request a waiver at initial21submission.2223## Package contents2425- Data files that can legally be shared26- Code and models needed to reproduce all tables and figures27- Read-me file explaining the sequence28- Data Availability Statement on the title page29- Restricted-data access instructions or waiver justification30- For RCTs: pre-analysis plan registration and deviations3132## Acceptance-stage replication gate3334Do not wait until conditional acceptance to discover that the archive cannot be35built. Run this gate before initial submission and again when the paper enters36revision.3738| Gate | Pass condition | Blocker to surface early |39|---|---|---|40| Exhibit inventory | Every main-text and appendix table/figure maps to one script and one input dataset | Hand-built table, untracked spreadsheet edit, or private intermediate file |41| Data rights | Each dataset is classified public, restricted, proprietary, confidential, or author-generated | No redistribution right or unclear crosswalk ownership |42| Repository plan | Public repository path, DOI plan, CC0 posture, and embargo/waiver status recorded | Deposit location or license undecided |43| Code portability | A clean clone runs from raw/public inputs or approved restricted mount points | Absolute paths, local user directories, hidden credentials |44| Reviewer audit trail | Read-me explains what a referee can reproduce now and what requires restricted access | DAS promises more than the archive can deliver |4546## Waiver logic4748Request a waiver at initial submission when data cannot be publicly deposited.49State how other researchers can obtain the data and commit to provide reasonable50guidance.5152## Waiver evidence test5354A waiver is not a reason to ship a thin package. Before asking for one, prepare55evidence that the non-public data barrier is real and that the reproducibility56route remains usable.5758| Question | Strong answer | Weak answer |59|---|---|---|60| Why can the data not be posted? | Contract, statute, IRB term, license, or agency rule named in plain language | "Confidential" without a source |61| How can another researcher apply? | Agency/vendor/contact path, application steps, and expected constraints | "Contact the authors" only |62| What can still be checked? | Code, dictionary, synthetic data, logs, exhibit map, and public-source rebuild scripts | PDF tables only |63| What does the DAS say? | Same access route and limits as the footnote and read-me | DAS, footnote, and read-me disagree |6465## Restricted-data package6667When the data cannot be public, still prepare:6869- synthetic or public-use data that exercises every script path when possible;70- data dictionary with variable construction and source tables;71- access instructions, application links, and approval constraints;72- log showing which outputs require restricted data;73- archive-plan footnote explaining the waiver and reproducibility route.7475## Deposit decisions by data source7677| Data source | What can usually be deposited | Waiver posture |78|---|---|---|79| Public-use surveys (CPS, ACS, NLSY, PSID extracts) | Extraction code plus the analysis file, or code that rebuilds it from raw downloads | Rarely needed; check redistribution terms of each survey |80| State administrative records (UI wages, K-12, Medicaid) | Code, codebooks, aggregate exhibits; microdata stays with the agency | Waiver expected; document the access route precisely |81| Own RCT microdata | De-identified analysis files under CC0 where consent and IRB allow | Partial waiver for identifying fields; PAP registration stated |82| Proprietary/commercial data | Code, pseudo-data, purchase or license instructions | Waiver with a named acquisition path |83| Linked or matched files | Each source assessed separately; the crosswalk is often the binding constraint | Mixed: deposit what is public, waiver the link keys |8485Repository choice and licensing details evolve — confirm against the journal's86current author guidelines before depositing.8788## Exhibit-to-script map8990The read-me should include a compact manifest. This is the fastest way to catch91irreproducible tables before upload.9293| Exhibit | Output file | Producing script | Data requirement | Notes |94|---|---|---|---|---|95| Table 1 | `tables/table1_balance.tex` | `03_tables/table1_balance.do` | public-use extract | Rebuilds from raw survey download |96| Figure 2 | `figures/event_study.pdf` | `04_figures/event_study.R` | restricted admin file | Runs only on approved secure machine |97| Appendix Table A4 | `tables/a4_placebo.tex` | `05_appendix/placebo.py` | synthetic test + restricted file | Synthetic version verifies code path |9899Use the actual filenames from the project. If an exhibit has no producing100script, treat that as a package defect, not a documentation detail.101102## Worked waiver scenario: UI wage records103104Illustrative case: earnings outcomes come from one state's unemployment-insurance105wage records under a data-use agreement that bars any microdata release.1061071. Footnote at submission: names the agency, the agreement, and states that108 code, codebooks, and a synthetic test file will be archived under CC0.1092. The read-me lists the application steps and typical approval constraints a110 replicator faces, and which exhibits need the restricted extract.1113. Every script runs against the synthetic file end-to-end so reviewers can112 verify logic without the data.1134. The Data Availability Statement mirrors the footnote — the two must not114 drift apart between submission and acceptance.115116## Read-me skeleton for the JHR archive117118```text119README120 1. Data sources & access (public files included; restricted: how to apply)121 2. Software & versions (Stata/R/Python; packages pinned)122 3. Run order: 00_master -> 01_clean -> 02_analysis -> 03_exhibits123 4. Runtime & hardware notes; random seeds fixed where used124 5. Exhibit map: each table/figure -> producing script -> data requirement125 6. License: CC0 1.0 Universal (data and code deposited)126```127128## Pre-acceptance dry run129130- Clone the package to a clean directory and run it without manual edits.131- Confirm every main-text and appendix exhibit regenerates byte-stable or with132 documented stochastic variation.133- Check that no intermediate file under a restrictive license leaks into the134 deposit.135- Compare the archive footnote, Data Availability Statement, waiver request,136 read-me, and repository landing page for identical access claims.137- Save the run log and unresolved exceptions in the project archive before138 acceptance, so the team can fix blockers before production deadlines.139140## Output format141142```text143[Data status] public / restricted / proprietary / confidential / mixed144[Archive plan footnote] ...145[DAS] ...146[Waiver needed] yes/no + reason147[Replication gate] exhibit map / data rights / repository plan / code portability / audit trail148[Restricted-data route] public deposit / partial waiver / full waiver + access path149[Dry-run result] clean / stochastic differences documented / blocked150[RCT PAP status] ...151[Next step] jhr-submission152```153154---155156**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Journal-of-Human-Resources-Skills/skills/jhr-replication-and-data-policy/SKILL.md`
brycewang-stanford