---

name: asr-data-and-transparency description: Use when handling data documentation, sharing, and confidentiality for an American Sociological Review (ASR) manuscript. ASR follows the ASA data-sharing policy — share data and documentation after a project's completion or major publications, with confidentiality and proprietary exemptions — rather than a mandatory editor-verified replication deposit. Prepares documentation; it does not over-state requirements.

Data & Transparency (asr-data-and-transparency)

ASR's transparency expectations follow the ASA data-sharing policy, which is a professional norm of availability — not (as at some journals) a mandatory, editor-run reproducibility check before publication. The right posture is: document thoroughly, share what you ethically can, and be explicit about confidentiality. Confirm the current supplementary-materials policy on the live page — this skill does not assert a verification step the policy does not state.

When to trigger

• Preparing data documentation and any supplementary materials
• Deciding what can be shared given confidentiality, IRB, or proprietary constraints
• Documenting qualitative or restricted-access data so claims are credible
• A reviewer asked how others could check or build on your analysis

What the ASA data-sharing policy says (verify current wording)

• Sociologists share data and pertinent documentation as an integral part of a research plan and generally make data available after completion of a project or its major publications.
• Exemptions: where proprietary agreements with employers, contractors, or clients preclude sharing, or where it is impossible to share data and protect the confidentiality of research participants.
• Submitting a manuscript elsewhere while under ASR review is unethical; findings that already appeared elsewhere must be clearly identified.

Good practice (do this even though ASR doesn't pre-verify)

• Document provenance and construction. A README/codebook describing sources, sample construction, variable definitions, and analysis steps — so the work is checkable.
• Quantitative: keep a master script + pinned versions + seeds so results can be regenerated; be ready to share code even if restricted data cannot be redistributed (give an access path).
• Qualitative: protect informants — anonymize, aggregate, or restrict sensitive material; consider a controlled-access repository (e.g., QDR) where appropriate; share what supports the claims without exposing participants.
• Confidentiality first. Human-subjects protection overrides sharing; state clearly when and why data cannot be shared, and what can (synthetic data, code, documentation).

Transparency posture by data type (ASR / ASA norm)

Because ASR spans the discipline's methodological range under one ASA ethics umbrella, the availability expectation lands differently on different evidence. This grid keeps the posture honest. Confirm specifics against the journal's current submission guidelines where mechanics are involved.

Data type	Typically shareable	Restricted	Credibility documentation
Public-use survey	data + code	none	codebook + master script + pinned versions
Administrative	code + access path	raw records	enclave/DUA reference, construction log
In-depth interviews	coding scheme	identifiable transcripts	anonymized excerpt table, memo trail
Ethnographic fieldnotes	analytic memos	informant identities	composite-disclosure note, IRB conditions
Computational / scraped	code + seeds	TOS-restricted corpora	model/version log, label validation

Worked micro-example (illustrative)

A comparative-historical paper on welfare-state formation draws on national archives plus a coded events dataset.

Shareable: the coded events table (N≈430), coding rules, replication script for the figures
Restricted: archival scans → cite finding aids + box/folder IDs instead
Credibility move: an evidence table maps each causal claim to ≥2 independent archival sources
Statement to editor: "Coded data + code deposited; archival images available to qualified
  researchers via [repository] under its access terms."

The posture shares what supports the claims, documents provenance, and is explicit about what cannot be redistributed and why.

Referee pushback → ASR-specific fix

• "How could anyone verify the qualitative claims?" → Provide a coding scheme, an excerpt-to-claim table, and a controlled-access route (e.g., QDR) rather than raw transcripts.
• "You promise open data but the IRB forbids it." → State the confidentiality constraint and offer synthetic data, code, and a documented access path.

Calibration anchors

• Availability, not editor-run replication. ASR expects professional sharing after completion or major publication — not a pre-publication verification gate; do not assert one.
• Confidentiality outranks sharing. Human-subjects protection wins any conflict; documenting why data are withheld is itself a credibility signal.
• Document so a generalist could follow. The standard is a stranger in another subfield tracing your evidence.

Anti-patterns

• Over-stating ASR's policy as a mandatory verified replication deposit (it is a sharing norm)
• Promising open data that IRB/confidentiality will not allow
• No codebook or documentation, making the analysis uncheckable
• Exposing identifiable information about ethnographic informants
• Submitting elsewhere while under ASR review (unethical)

Output format

【Sharing posture】what can be shared (data / code / docs / synthetic) and what cannot, and why
【Documentation】README/codebook + provenance + (quant) seeds/pinned versions? [Y/N]
【Confidentiality】informant/participant protection handled? [Y/N]
【Prior appearance】any overlapping findings identified? [Y/N]
【Policy check】current ASR supplementary-materials policy confirmed? [Y/N/待核实]
【Next】asr-review-process

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — reproducibility tooling and controlled-access options (QDR)
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — ASA data-sharing policy and ethics