Reporting & Data Policy (conbio-reporting-and-data-policy)
Conservation Biology needs a data-availability statement for research/synthesis articles. The
journal-specific Wiley data-sharing tier is Encourages, so the operating standard for this pack is:
archive shareable data and code in an appropriate repository (e.g., Dryad, Zenodo, Figshare,
GenBank) with a persistent identifier, and document restrictions when data cannot be shared. Build
the package as you go so acceptance does not stall.
When to trigger
- Writing the data-availability statement and assembling the archive
- A manuscript is heading toward acceptance and you need the deposit ready
- Data cannot be fully shared (sensitive species, privacy, legal/provider restrictions)
- A Review or synthesis where the screened-study dataset should be shared
What to prepare
- Data-availability statement. A short statement in the manuscript saying where the data and code
are (repository + DOI/identifier), or why they cannot be shared and how to obtain them.
- Repository deposit where sharing is possible. Place shareable data and code in a recognized
archive with a persistent identifier and a guarantee of preservation — not a personal website or
transient cloud link. Dryad is widely used for ecology/conservation; software-heavy work may also use
Zenodo/GitHub-Zenodo.
- Quantitative materials. Data, code, and documentation sufficient to regenerate every reported
result: master script + README + pinned versions + seeds.
- Synthesis materials. For Reviews/meta-analyses, share the screening decisions, included-study
list, and extracted effect sizes.
Sensitive-species & restricted data (a conservation-specific duty)
- Protect at-risk taxa. For threatened, exploited, or trafficked species, mask or coarsen precise
localities (nests, dens, roosts, populations) so the archive cannot aid poaching or disturbance;
state that you have done so.
- Restricted data. If data are restricted (Indigenous data sovereignty, provider agreements,
privacy), explain why, give instructions on how others can request access, and provide
synthetic or aggregated data where feasible so the code can be exercised.
Build-as-you-go checklist
Anti-patterns
- Treating the deposit as a post-publication afterthought
- A personal URL instead of a persistent-identifier repository
- Publishing precise locations of threatened or trafficked species
- Claiming data are restricted with no access path or synthetic substitute
- Undocumented, un-seeded, unpinned code that "works on my machine"
Operating pass for Conservation Biology
Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the species/system threat, conservation decision, and uncertainty relevant to action; then test whether the manuscript addresses conservation-science reviewers who ask whether evidence changes biodiversity, management, or policy action.
- Primary move: Return a claim-evidence-risk ledger; every recommendation must point to a manuscript location or missing artifact.
- Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
- Neighbor test: compare against Biological Conservation for applied conservation breadth, Global Change Biology for climate/ecosystem process, Ecology Letters for theory-forward ecology; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- Submission-ready gate: before final advice, re-open
resources/official-source-map.md for
upload-week rules and name the one live-check item that could change the recommendation.
Output format
【Repository】Dryad / Zenodo / other — package staged? [Y/N]
【Data-availability statement】drafted with DOI/identifier? [Y/N]
【Reproduces tables/figures?】master script verified locally? [Y/N]
【Documentation】README + provenance + seeds + pinned versions? [Y/N]
【Sensitive data】localities masked / restricted-data access path? [Y/N/NA]
【Next】conbio-writing-style
Supplementary resources
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Conservation-Biology-Skills/skills/conbio-reporting-and-data-policy/SKILL.md
1---2name: conbio-reporting-and-data-policy3description: Use when preparing the data-availability statement and the data/code archive for a Conservation Biology manuscript. The journal (Wiley/SCB) requires a data-availability statement for research/synthesis articles, encourages data sharing, and requires sensitive species data to be protected. Prepares the package; it does not waive requirements.4---5
6
7# Reporting & Data Policy (conbio-reporting-and-data-policy)
8
9*Conservation Biology* needs a **data-availability statement** for research/synthesis articles. The
10journal-specific Wiley data-sharing tier is **Encourages**, so the operating standard for this pack is:
11archive shareable **data and code** in an appropriate repository (e.g., **Dryad**, Zenodo, Figshare,
12GenBank) with a **persistent identifier**, and document restrictions when data cannot be shared. Build
13the package as you go so acceptance does not stall.
14
15## When to trigger
16
17- Writing the data-availability statement and assembling the archive
18- A manuscript is heading toward acceptance and you need the deposit ready
19- Data cannot be fully shared (sensitive species, privacy, legal/provider restrictions)
20- A Review or synthesis where the screened-study dataset should be shared
21
22## What to prepare
23
241. **Data-availability statement.** A short statement in the manuscript saying where the data and code
25 are (repository + DOI/identifier), or why they cannot be shared and how to obtain them.
262. **Repository deposit where sharing is possible.** Place shareable data and code in a recognized
27 archive with a **persistent identifier** and a guarantee of preservation — not a personal website or
28 transient cloud link. Dryad is widely used for ecology/conservation; software-heavy work may also use
29 Zenodo/GitHub-Zenodo.
303. **Quantitative materials.** Data, code, and documentation sufficient to regenerate every reported
31 result: master script + README + pinned versions + seeds.
324. **Synthesis materials.** For Reviews/meta-analyses, share the screening decisions, included-study
33 list, and extracted effect sizes.
34
35## Sensitive-species & restricted data (a conservation-specific duty)
36
37- **Protect at-risk taxa.** For threatened, exploited, or trafficked species, **mask or coarsen precise
38 localities** (nests, dens, roosts, populations) so the archive cannot aid poaching or disturbance;
39 state that you have done so.
40- **Restricted data.** If data are restricted (Indigenous data sovereignty, provider agreements,
41 privacy), **explain why**, give **instructions on how others can request access**, and provide
42 **synthetic or aggregated data** where feasible so the code can be exercised.
43
44## Build-as-you-go checklist
45
46- [ ] One **master script** regenerates **every** table and figure from raw/constructed data
47- [ ] **README** documents data provenance, construction steps, and how to reproduce each exhibit
48- [ ] **Seeds** set and reported for every stochastic step
49- [ ] Software/package **versions pinned** (`renv.lock` / `requirements.txt` / recorded installs)
50- [ ] **Data-availability statement** drafted with repository + identifier or restriction/access route
51- [ ] Sensitive localities **masked/coarsened**; masking noted
52- [ ] Restricted data: reason + access instructions + synthetic/aggregated substitute
53
54## Anti-patterns
55
56- Treating the deposit as a post-publication afterthought
57- A personal URL instead of a persistent-identifier repository
58- Publishing precise locations of threatened or trafficked species
59- Claiming data are restricted with no access path or synthetic substitute
60- Undocumented, un-seeded, unpinned code that "works on my machine"
61
62
63## Operating pass for Conservation Biology
64
65Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the species/system threat, conservation decision, and uncertainty relevant to action; then test whether the manuscript addresses conservation-science reviewers who ask whether evidence changes biodiversity, management, or policy action.
66
67- **Primary move:** Return a claim-evidence-risk ledger; every recommendation must point to a manuscript location or missing artifact.
68- **Decision ledger:** return `claim / evidence / blocker / next edit` rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
69- **Neighbor test:** compare against Biological Conservation for applied conservation breadth, Global Change Biology for climate/ecosystem process, Ecology Letters for theory-forward ecology; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
70- **Submission-ready gate:** before final advice, re-open `resources/official-source-map.md` for
71 upload-week rules and name the one live-check item that could change the recommendation.
72
73## Output format
74
75```
76【Repository】Dryad / Zenodo / other — package staged? [Y/N]
77【Data-availability statement】drafted with DOI/identifier? [Y/N]
78【Reproduces tables/figures?】master script verified locally? [Y/N]
79【Documentation】README + provenance + seeds + pinned versions? [Y/N]
80【Sensitive data】localities masked / restricted-data access path? [Y/N/NA]
81【Next】conbio-writing-style
82```
83
84## Supplementary resources
85
86- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — repositories and reproducibility tooling
87- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — Wiley/SCB data-sharing policy and Dryad
88
89---
90
91**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Conservation-Biology-Skills/skills/conbio-reporting-and-data-policy/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain