Worlddev Replication Package

Replication & Transparency Package (worlddev-replication-package)

When to trigger

• The paper is empirical and there is no data-availability statement or no organized code
• Sensitive development data (household surveys, conflict locations, vulnerable informants) cannot be posted as-is
• A qualitative paper has no plan for transparency — readers cannot see how evidence became claims
• The data-availability statement risks de-anonymizing the authors during double-anonymized review
• Reviewers or the editor request materials and the project is not reproducible end to end

WD's transparency posture

WD follows Elsevier's research-data policy: authors are asked to state data availability and are encouraged to share data and code, with deposit in a recognized repository as best practice (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). WD is not a journal with a mandatory pre-acceptance reproducibility audit on the model of the AEA or the Econometric Society — but the expectation of transparency is real and rising, and referees increasingly ask for it. Two features make WD distinctive:

1. Double-anonymized review creates a real tension: a data-availability statement, a repository link, or an acknowledgments line can reveal author identity. Prepare a review-safe version (anonymized statement: "data and code will be deposited in a public repository upon acceptance"; no identifying URLs, no self-citation that unmasks) and a camera-ready version with the live deposit. Keep these separate so the wrong one is never uploaded.
2. Ethical and access constraints are the norm, not the exception in development research. Restricted survey data, geocoded conflict data, and human-subjects protections often bar open posting. WD accepts this — what it does not accept is silence. State why data cannot be shared and how a reader could obtain or reconstruct access.

Quantitative package

• Data-availability statement matched to reality: open / restricted-with-access-route / proprietary-with-justification.
• Code that runs top to bottom from raw (or de-identified) inputs to every number, table, and figure, with a master script and a README listing software, packages/versions, and runtime.
• De-identification of human-subjects data; document the procedure; never post direct identifiers or precise locations of vulnerable populations.
• Provenance: cite the original data source and any survey instrument; for secondary data (DHS, LSMS, Afrobarometer), give the version/round.

Qualitative transparency package

Transparency for qualitative WD work is not raw-transcript dumping — that can violate informant confidentiality. It means making the inference auditable:

• Methods appendix: sampling/case-selection logic, data-generation process, coding scheme, and analysis approach.
• Evidence-to-claim trail: how themes were built; how rival explanations were tested.
• Anonymized, ethically cleared excerpts sufficient to let a reader judge the interpretation, with confidentiality protected.
• Reflexivity and ethics note: consent, IRB/ethics approval, and the researcher's positionality.

Mixed-methods

Document both strands and, critically, the integration procedure — how the qual and quant were brought together — so the joint inference is reproducible in logic even where raw data are restricted.

Checklist

• Data-availability statement is accurate (open / restricted / proprietary) with a route to access where closed
• Quant code runs end-to-end from inputs to all exhibits; README lists software + versions
• Human-subjects data de-identified; no precise locations of vulnerable groups
• Secondary data cited with version/round; instruments provided where relevant
• Qual: methods appendix + evidence trail + ethics/consent documented
• Review-safe (anonymized) version prepared separately from the camera-ready deposit
• Mixed: integration procedure documented

Anti-patterns

• A repository link or identifying acknowledgments in the review version — breaks double-anonymization
• "Data available on request" with no real intention or route to honor it
• Posting geocoded conflict data or identifiable informant material — an ethics failure WD takes seriously
• Treating qualitative transparency as raw-transcript dumping rather than an auditable inference trail
• Code that reproduces some but not all reported numbers

Output format

【Journal】World Development (WD)
【Skill】worlddev-replication-package
【Verdict】deposit-ready / gaps remain
【Data status】open / restricted+route / proprietary+justification
【Code】end-to-end reproducible + README? [Y/N]
【Ethics】de-identification / consent / IRB documented? [Y/N]
【Qual transparency】methods appendix + evidence trail? [Y/N / n/a]
【Anonymization】review-safe version separated from camera-ready? [Y/N]
【Source status】verified URL / 待核实 / not asserted
【Next skill】worlddev-referee-strategy

Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → World-Development-Skills/skills/worlddev-replication-package/SKILL.md