Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› worlddev-replication-package
worlddev-replication-package
GitHub为World Development期刊准备复制与透明度材料，生成数据可用性声明、匿名化代码及定性证据链。确保双盲评审安全，符合Elsevier政策，解决敏感数据共享与伦理合规问题，提升研究可复现性。
Trigger Scenarios
实证论文缺乏数据可用性声明或组织良好的代码
涉及敏感发展数据无法直接公开
定性论文缺乏透明度计划
数据声明可能导致双盲评审作者身份泄露
审稿人要求提供不可重复的项目材料
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill worlddev-replication-package -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "worlddev-replication-package",
"description": "Use when preparing the data\/code or qualitative-transparency materials for a World Development (WD) manuscript under Elsevier's research-data policy and double-anonymized review. Assembles the package; it does not invent evidence or citations."
}
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:
- 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.
- 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
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:32
