Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› spq-data-and-transparency
spq-data-and-transparency
GitHub协助作者为SPQ论文准备数据与透明度声明。明确共享非强制且不影响录用，涵盖定量代码共享及定性过程透明化，指导敏感数据保密、伦理合规及透明度立场撰写。
Trigger Scenarios
决定共享哪些数据/材料及其透明度立场
处理保密或敏感数据（如访谈记录）
回应审稿人关于可重复性的问题
撰写数据可用性及伦理声明
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill spq-data-and-transparency -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"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."
}
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)
- 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.
- 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).
- Quantitative materials (if shared). Data, code, and documentation sufficient to regenerate reported results: master script + README + pinned versions + seeds + scale items.
- 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— reproducibility tooling and CAQDAS for documented interpretive work../../resources/official-source-map.md— SPQ data-and-materials statement + ASA data-sharing policy
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:25
