--- name: commres-transparency-and-data description: Use when preparing the transparency, open-science, and reproducibility materials for a Communication Research (CR) manuscript — data-availability statement, deposited data/code/materials, preregistration, and the restricted-data path. Prepares the materials; it does not waive requirements. --- # Transparency & Data (commres-transparency-and-data) CR is a quantitative, social-scientific journal, and its reviewers increasingly expect the materials that let others scrutinize how the numbers were produced. SAGE supports a **data-availability statement** and open-practices options; build the statement and supporting materials **as you write** so submission and any open-practice claim go smoothly. Confirm the journal's current wording on the SAGE author page (待核实 on exact policy). ## When to trigger - Drafting the **data-availability statement** - Deciding whether to share data, code, and materials, or to preregister - Preparing a **preregistration** / pre-analysis plan for a prospective design (note it in the cover letter) - Data cannot be fully shared (privacy, ethics, platform/legal restrictions) and you need the path forward ## What CR / SAGE expects (verify current wording on the policy page) 1. **Data-availability statement.** State where the data are (repository + identifier), under what conditions they can be accessed, and — if they cannot be shared — **why**, with instructions for how others might obtain them. 2. **Open practices (where pursued).** - **Open data** — data and a codebook deposited in a trusted repository with a persistent identifier. - **Open materials** — stimuli, instruments, scales, and code deposited so the study can be reproduced. - **Preregistration** — a time-stamped, registered design/analysis plan; note it in the cover letter. 3. **Quantitative materials.** Data, code, codebook, scale items, and documentation sufficient to regenerate every reported result; master script + README + pinned versions + seeds. 4. **ORCID and ethics.** Provide ORCID where requested; state IRB/ethics approval and informed consent; for content analysis, deposit the codebook and intercoder-reliability report. ## When data cannot be shared (restricted-data path) - **Explain why** in the data-availability statement (ethical/privacy concerns, platform terms of service, or legal restrictions by the provider). - Provide **instructions on how others can obtain the data** (access process, application, provider contact). - Where possible, provide **synthetic or de-identified data** so the code can be run. ## Build-as-you-go checklist - [ ] **Data-availability statement** drafted (repository, identifier, access conditions, or exemption) - [ ] One **master script** regenerates **every** table and figure from raw/constructed data - [ ] **README** documents data provenance, construction, and how to reproduce each exhibit - [ ] **Seeds** set and reported for every stochastic step; software/package **versions pinned** - [ ] Scales/stimuli/codebook deposited (open materials) where claimed - [ ] Content analysis: codebook + intercoder-reliability report included - [ ] Materials **anonymized** (no author-identifying paths/links) for double-anonymized review ## Transparency expectations by study type (decision table) Match the deposit to the design rather than forcing one template: | Study type | What a CR referee wants deposited | Open practice most relevant | |------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Experiment | data + codebook + stimuli + analysis script | open data + materials + preregistration | | Survey / panel | data + scale items + analysis script + measurement model | open data + materials | | Content analysis | codebook + coder instructions + reliability subsample + texts | open materials (+ open data) | | Computational / text-as-data | corpus or query, model/version, seeds, **human-validation set** | open materials + open data | For computational measures, the **human-validation set is itself the evidence** that the automated label means what the paper claims — depositing the classifier without it leaves the construct unverified. ## Worked micro-example: a DAS for a copyrighted-news corpus (illustrative) A computational content analysis of **40,000 news articles** (illustrative) hits a familiar wall: the texts are copyrighted and the feed bars redistribution. The path: (1) deposit the **codebook, article IDs/URLs, query parameters, and analysis code** so a same-license reader reproduces the pipeline; (2) deposit the **human-validation sample** and shareable derived data; (3) write a data-availability statement naming the restriction, provider, and access route, and offering **de-identified derived features** (frame proportions per article) so modeling re-runs without raw text. ## Anti-patterns - Treating the data-availability statement as an afterthought rather than a submission element - Claiming an open-practice credit whose materials are not actually deposited or do not reproduce results - A personal URL instead of a trusted repository with a persistent identifier - Claiming data are restricted without giving an access path or synthetic substitute - De-anonymizing the manuscript via an open-materials link during review ## Output format ``` 【Data-availability statement】drafted? repository + identifier or exemption? [Y/N] 【Reproduces tables/figures?】master script verified locally? [Y/N] 【Open practices sought】open data / open materials / preregistration (materials staged?) 【Documentation】README + provenance + seeds + pinned versions? [Y/N] 【Restricted data?】exemption note + access path + synthetic data? 【Ethics/ORCID】IRB + consent stated; ORCID provided? [Y/N] 【Next】commres-review-process ``` ## Supplementary resources - [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — reproducibility tooling and repositories (OSF, Dataverse, QDR) - [`../../resources/code/`](../../resources/code/) — master-script + seed-discipline skeleton - [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — data-availability and open-practices policy