L’interface est localisée ; les présentations et documents des Skills sont traduits automatiquement par IA dans votre langue. Le code, les commandes, chemins et termes techniques restent en version originale, et le document de l’auteur fait foi.
Explorer les Skills
Données et recherche · SKILL.md

jru-replication-package

jru-replication-package

Use when assembling the data, code, and experiment materials for a Journal of Risk and Uncertainty (JRU) manuscript and writing its Data Availability Statement. Builds a transparent, reproducible package; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

Documentation de la Skill

GitHub

name: jru-replication-package description: Use when assembling the data, code, and experiment materials for a Journal of Risk and Uncertainty (JRU) manuscript and writing its Data Availability Statement. Builds a transparent, reproducible package; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Replication Package (jru-replication-package)

When to trigger

  • The paper has experimental or field results and you need a Data Availability Statement for the Springer submission
  • z-Tree / oTree / Qualtrics materials and the structural estimation code exist but are not organized for a stranger to run
  • A referee or the editor asks whether the elicitation could be reproduced from the materials provided
  • Decisions about what data can be shared (human-subjects constraints) versus what must be documented are unsettled

What JRU / Springer expect

JRU requires a Data Availability Statement on original research articles, and Springer strongly encourages sharing the underlying research data (deposit in a recognized repository, with a citable DOI where possible). For this journal the package has two faces that generic econ replication advice misses: the experiment must be reproducible as a procedure (instructions, screens, incentive rules — not just the resulting dataset), and the structural estimation must be re-runnable (code that recovers the reported parameters). Exact policy wording and any mandatory-deposit details are 待核实 — verify on the official submission guidelines.

The two-face package

ComponentExperimental paperStructural/empirical paper
Materialsfull instructions, decision screens, comprehension checks, the incentive/payment protocoldata source + access terms, construction of the risk-exposure variable
Codez-Tree/oTree/Qualtrics source + analysis scriptsestimation code (MLE/GMM/MSM), from raw data to every reported parameter
Datasubject-level choices (de-identified), session metadata, randomization seedsanalysis dataset or a clear access path if proprietary (e.g., admin/insurer data)
Reproducibilitya stranger can re-run the experiment AND re-derive the estimatesone script regenerates every table/figure from raw inputs

Human-subjects and proprietary data

  • De-identify subject data; document the IRB/ethics approval. If raw data cannot be shared, share the derived analysis data plus enough documentation to reproduce results.
  • For insurer/administrative VSL-type data, state the access terms and provide the code so the pipeline is auditable even if the data are restricted.
  • Pre-registration (if the study was pre-registered): link the registry and report deviations.

Layout that a stranger can run

A clean package for a JRU elicitation or estimation paper has a predictable shape:

  • /instructions — participant-facing text, decision screens, comprehension checks, payment protocol
  • /experiment — z-Tree/oTree/Qualtrics source, with the random-incentive rule visible in code
  • /data — de-identified subject choices, session metadata, randomization seeds, codebook
  • /code — a single master script that runs raw → cleaned → every table/figure, plus the structural estimation
  • README — software versions, run order, expected outputs, and the data-access path for any restricted inputs

The test is blunt: a colleague with the repository and nothing else should be able to (a) re-run the experiment and (b) reproduce every reported parameter.

Writing the Data Availability Statement

  • Match the statement to reality: if data are restricted, say so and give the access route, do not over-promise.
  • Cite the deposit with its DOI/repository where one exists; a citable archive is stronger than "available on request."
  • Cross-check the statement against the actual deposit before submission — a mismatch is a common, avoidable editorial flag.

Checklist

  • A Data Availability Statement is drafted and matches what is actually deposited
  • Experiment: full instructions, screens, comprehension checks, and incentive rules are included (procedure reproducible)
  • Experiment software source (z-Tree/oTree/Qualtrics) and randomization seeds provided
  • One master script regenerates every table and figure from raw inputs
  • Structural code recovers the reported parameters; environment/versions documented
  • Data de-identified; IRB/ethics approval documented; proprietary-data access terms stated
  • Pre-registration linked and deviations reported (if applicable)
  • Policy specifics verified against official guidelines or marked 待核实

Common reproducibility failures in risk papers

  • Seeds not saved, so the randomized lottery sequence cannot be regenerated — the experiment is not reproducible even with the software.
  • Hand-edited intermediates between raw choices and the estimation, leaving a gap no script bridges.
  • Estimation that does not converge to the reported numbers on a clean machine because tolerances, starting values, or package versions were not pinned.
  • Comprehension-check data dropped silently in cleaning, so a stranger cannot reproduce the analysis sample.

A quick self-test: clone the package into a fresh directory, run the master script end to end, and confirm it reproduces the headline parameter without manual intervention.

Anti-patterns

  • Depositing the dataset but not the instructions — for an elicitation paper the procedure is the method
  • A "results.do" that assumes hand-edited intermediate files no one else has
  • Sharing identifiable subject data, or omitting the IRB statement
  • A Data Availability Statement that promises data not actually in the package
  • Treating Springer's data policy as optional; the statement is required even when data are restricted

Worked vignette (illustrative)

An ambiguity-elicitation paper deposits only the cleaned choice matrix. A referee cannot tell whether the matching-probabilities task was incentive-compatible as run. The JRU-ready package adds the oTree source, the on-screen instructions and comprehension checks, the random-incentive payment rule, the session seeds, and a single script that goes from raw choices to the reported α-MEU estimate — so the elicitation and the estimate are both reproducible.

Output format

【Journal】Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
【Skill】jru-replication-package
【Verdict】ready / complete materials / fix access
【DAS drafted】matches deposit [Y/N]
【Experiment reproducible】instructions+screens+incentives+seeds [Y/N]
【Code reproducible】master script regenerates all exhibits [Y/N]
【Ethics/data】IRB documented; de-identified; access terms stated [Y/N]
【Policy status】verified / 待核实
【Next skill】jru-referee-strategy
Skills enregistrées