---

name: jmf-transparency-and-data-policy description: Use when preparing the reproducibility / replication and data-sharing materials for a Journal of Marriage and Family (JMF) manuscript. JMF asks for replication-level detail and Wiley applies a data-sharing policy with a data availability statement; many family datasets are restricted-use. Covers quantitative and qualitative transparency and the restricted-data path. Prepares the package; it does not waive requirements.

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

JMF expects enough detail on design and procedures to facilitate replication, and Wiley applies a data-sharing policy requiring a Data Availability Statement for research and synthesis articles. Many family datasets (PSID, Add Health, Fragile Families, NSFG) are restricted-use and cannot be redistributed — so plan transparency around access, not redistribution. Live-check the current JMF/Wiley wording before upload.

When to trigger

• Building the reproducibility/replication and data-availability materials
• Writing the data availability statement for the manuscript
• Your data are restricted-use and cannot be posted
• A replication submission (materials expectations are central)

What JMF / Wiley expect

1. Replication-level detail. The Method and any supplements describe the sample derivation, measures, coding, and analytic approach in enough detail that a competent reader could reproduce the study. Brief reports are explicitly welcomed for replications and important null findings.
2. Data availability statement. Wiley's data-sharing policy requires a statement in research and synthesis articles confirming whether data are shared and how they can be accessed; check whether JMF adds journal-specific wording at upload.
3. Analysis code. Deposit code that regenerates the reported tables and figures in an approved repository (e.g., OSF, ICPSR, Harvard Dataverse) where data terms allow. Master script + README + pinned versions + seeds.
4. Qualitative materials. Share what the data terms and human-subjects protections allow (e.g., coding schemes, excerpts, evidence tables), with access controls where needed; do not expose identifiable family information.

Restricted-use family data (the common case)

• State the restriction and who imposes it (e.g., data-provider agreement, IRB, privacy of minors).
• Provide README instructions on exactly how others obtain the data (application process, provider contact, required agreements) so the analysis is reproducible by an authorized user.
• Where feasible, provide synthetic or derived data plus full code so the pipeline can be run.
• Cite the dataset and version precisely (DOI/release) so reviewers know exactly what you used.

Build-as-you-go checklist

• One master script regenerates every table and figure from raw/constructed data
• README documents data provenance, sample derivation, and how to reproduce each exhibit
• Seeds set and reported for imputation, bootstrap, and stochastic steps
• Software/package versions pinned (renv.lock / requirements.txt / recorded installs)
• Data availability statement drafted (shared / restricted + access path)
• Restricted data: restriction note + access instructions + synthetic data where feasible
• Preregistration / pre-analysis plan linked (anonymized) where applicable

Transparency expectations by data type at JMF

Data type	What can be shared	Access path to document	Common trap
Public-use survey (e.g., some NSFG files)	Constructed analytic code + variable derivations	Cite dataset DOI/release; link repository	Posting a redistributable file you re-shaped without the version
Restricted-use panel (PSID, Add Health, Fragile Families)	Code + README; not the raw data	Application/agreement steps so an authorized user reproduces	"Available on request" with no access route
Couple/dyadic micro-data	De-identified derived measures where terms allow	Provider contact + agreement	Re-identifiable couples or children in shared excerpts
Qualitative family interviews	Coding scheme, evidence tables, masked excerpts	Access controls per IRB/consent	Exposing identifying family detail

For the flagship journal of family science, the Wiley data-sharing policy and a data availability statement sit alongside JMF's expectation of replication-level methodological detail. Because so many family datasets are restricted-use, transparency at JMF is engineered around documented access, not redistribution.

Worked micro-example (illustrative)

A divorce-timing paper uses restricted PSID-linked data that cannot be posted. The transparency package: (1) a data availability statement reading, in effect, "Data are from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (release YYYY) and are restricted-use; access requires a PSID sensitive-data agreement — see README for the application steps"; (2) a master script that regenerates all six tables and two figures from the constructed file, with seeds fixed for the multiple-imputation and bootstrap steps; (3) a synthetic dataset of the same schema so a reader without the agreement can run the pipeline end-to-end and confirm it executes; (4) precise dataset citation with release/version. The release year and agreement name here are illustrative placeholders to confirm against the provider.

Referee/editor-facing pitfalls and the fix

• "How would anyone reproduce this?" Replace "available on request" with the concrete application process, provider contact, and required agreements for the restricted family dataset.
• "Code doesn't reproduce the printed tables." Ship one master script that builds every exhibit, plus pinned package versions (renv.lock/requirements.txt) and recorded seeds.
• "Qualitative materials would identify families." Share coding schemes and masked evidence tables under access controls rather than raw transcripts.

Calibration anchors (hedged where uncertain)

• That JMF expects replication-level detail and that Wiley requires a Data Availability Statement are stable features; live-check whether the JMF upload workflow adds journal-specific wording or repository expectations beyond Wiley's general policy.
• Brief reports are an established channel for replications and important null findings, which raises the premium on a clean reproducibility package; treat this as a venue norm to verify, not a quota.

Anti-patterns

• Treating transparency as a post-acceptance afterthought
• A vague "data available on request" with no access path for restricted family data
• Posting identifiable information about couples, children, or families
• Code that does not actually reproduce the printed tables/figures
• Undocumented, un-seeded, unpinned code that "works on my machine"

Output format

【Replication detail】sample/measures/coding documented? [Y/N]
【Data availability statement】shared / restricted + access path drafted? [Y/N]
【Code deposit】master script reproduces tables/figures (OSF/ICPSR/Dataverse)? [Y/N]
【Restricted data】restriction note + access instructions + synthetic data?
【Qualitative transparency】materials documented within human-subjects limits? [Y/N/NA]
【Next】jmf-review-process

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — repositories, reproducibility tooling, and restricted-data handling
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — Wiley data-sharing policy and JMF replication guidance