Transparency & Data Policy (apsr-transparency-and-data-policy)

APSR does not just ask for data — it verifies that the deposited materials reproduce the manuscript's tables and figures before publication. Build the package as you go so conditional acceptance does not stall.

When to trigger

• Building the reproducibility/replication package
• A manuscript reached conditional acceptance and the editorial office requested materials
• Data cannot be fully shared (privacy, ethics, legal/provider restrictions) and you need the exemption path
• A Replications and Reappraisals submission (materials expectations are central)

What APSR requires (verify current wording on the policy page)

1. Deposit to the APSR Dataverse. Authors of conditionally accepted manuscripts submit a reproducibility package to the APSR Dataverse on Harvard Dataverse — the journal's dedicated repository with permanent identifiers and preservation. Not a personal website or generic cloud link.
2. Editorial verification. The office reviews the package to confirm it can reproduce the manuscript's tables and figures and that the research process is documented well enough. Treat this as a real check, not a formality.
3. Quantitative materials. Data, code, and documentation sufficient to regenerate every reported result. Master script + README + pinned versions + seeds.
4. Qualitative materials. Share the materials and data used, alongside literature citations, in a form that supports the claims (e.g., evidence tables, annotated sources), with access controls where needed (QDR is an option for controlled access).

When data cannot be shared (exemption path)

• Explain why the relevant data are not available (ethical/privacy concerns or legal restrictions by the data provider).
• Provide README instructions on exactly how others can obtain the data (access process, application, provider contact).
• Where possible, provide synthetic data resembling the unavailable data so the code can be run.

Package skeleton (what the verifiers should find)

apsr-repro/
├── README.md            # provenance, environment, run instructions, exhibit map
├── run_all.{R,do,sh}    # one entry point → every table and figure
├── data/
│   ├── raw/             # as obtained (or access instructions if restricted)
│   └── constructed/     # built by scripts, never by hand
├── code/
│   ├── 01_build.*       # raw → analysis data
│   ├── 02_analysis.*    # estimates
│   └── 03_exhibits.*    # writes output/Table1.tex, output/Figure2.pdf, ...
└── output/              # regenerated exhibits, named to match the manuscript

The README's exhibit map — "Table 1 ← code/03_exhibits.* lines …; runtime ~N minutes" — is what lets the editorial office verify quickly instead of bouncing the package back.

Verification dry run (before conditional acceptance, not after)

1. Clone the package to a fresh directory or machine — not your working tree.
2. Run only what the README says. Any manual step you perform but did not write down is a defect.
3. Diff every regenerated exhibit against the manuscript: numbers, rounding, N's, note text.
4. Record total runtime in the README; flag any step needing > a few hours or special hardware.
5. Have a coauthor or colleague repeat steps 1–3 cold. If they ask you a single question, the answer belongs in the README.

Preregistration discipline (APSR-specific)

Preregistration and pre-analysis plans are encouraged, not required — but if you reference one:

• Share it anonymized (as an appendix or via an anonymized OSF view) so double-anonymous review survives; a PAP with your name on it defeats the anonymization you did everywhere else.
• Mark registered vs. unregistered analyses clearly in the text — this is the stated expectation, and it converts "exploratory" from a weakness into a labeled category.
• Keep a deviations note: every departure from the plan, with the reason, in the appendix.

Build-as-you-go checklist

• One master script regenerates every table and figure from raw/constructed data
• README documents data provenance, construction steps, and how to reproduce each exhibit
• Seeds set and reported for every stochastic step
• Software/package versions pinned (renv.lock / requirements.txt / recorded installs)
• Exhibit numbers in the manuscript match the package output exactly
• Restricted data: exemption note + access instructions + synthetic data where feasible
• Preregistration / pre-analysis plan linked (anonymized) where applicable

Anti-patterns

• Treating the deposit as a post-publication afterthought (it gates publication)
• Depositing code that does not actually reproduce the printed tables/figures
• A personal URL instead of the APSR Dataverse
• Claiming data are restricted without giving an access path or synthetic substitute
• Undocumented, un-seeded, unpinned code that "works on my machine"

Output format

【Repository】APSR Dataverse (Harvard) — package staged? [Y/N]
【Reproduces tables/figures?】master script verified locally? [Y/N]
【Documentation】README + provenance + seeds + pinned versions? [Y/N]
【Restricted data?】exemption note + access path + synthetic data?
【Qualitative transparency】evidence/sources documented? [Y/N/NA]
【Next】apsr-review-process

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — reproducibility tooling and qualitative-transparency options (QDR, ATI)
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — APSR Research Transparency policy + APSR Dataverse