| name | popdevr-transparency-and-data |
| description | Use when preparing the data-availability statement and reproducibility materials for a Population and Development Review (PDR, Wiley / Population Council) manuscript. PDR follows Wiley's data-sharing and research-integrity expectations — a data availability statement, ORCID, and reproducible, well-documented materials deposited in a FAIR repository (verify current policy). Covers restricted-data exemptions. Prepares the materials; it does not waive requirements. |
Transparency & Data (popdevr-transparency-and-data)
PDR sits within Wiley's author and research-integrity framework: a data availability statement is
expected, ORCID is encouraged/required for submitting authors, and authors are expected to make data and
materials available where ethics and licensing permit. PDR hosts no repository of its own — you choose
a FAIR repository and provide persistent identifiers. Build the materials as you go so revision and
acceptance do not stall. Verify current wording on the Wiley author page and the data-policy page. 待核实.
When to trigger
- Building the reproducibility materials and the data availability statement
- A manuscript reached revision/acceptance and you must finalize the statement and deposit
- Data cannot be fully shared (privacy, confidentiality, DHS/census licensing, provider restrictions) and
you need the exemption language
- Choosing a repository and persistent identifier; setting up ORCID
What PDR / Wiley expect (verify current policy on the author page)
- Data availability statement. Include a statement describing whether and how the data underlying
the results can be accessed. For public data, give the access method with a persistent identifier
(DOI or accession number); for restricted data, state the access conditions.
- FAIR repository + persistent identifiers. Because PDR hosts no repository, deposit data and
materials in a FAIR-aligned repository (ICPSR/openICPSR, Harvard Dataverse, Zenodo, OSF) and cite
it with a permanent link — not a personal website or generic cloud folder. Find one via
FAIRsharing.org or re3data.org.
- Reproducible, documented code. Provide code that regenerates the results, with software versions
recorded and informative comments. For a quantitative population-and-development paper, treat
this as expected, not optional.
- Restricted data (common in this field). DHS, census microdata, and linked administrative records
are frequently licensed or confidential — describe the conditions limiting access and how others
may obtain the data, provide the extract specification and code rather than the raw microdata, and
align with FAIR principles as far as possible.
- ORCID and integrity. Provide ORCID for the submitting author; declare funding, conflicts, and
ethics/consent where human subjects are involved.
Build-as-you-go checklist
Anti-patterns
- Treating the data statement as a last-minute formality at acceptance
- A personal URL or generic cloud link instead of a persistent identifier in a FAIR repository
- Posting licensed DHS/census microdata you are not permitted to redistribute (share the extract code instead)
- Undocumented, un-seeded, uncommented code that "works on my machine"
- Claiming data are restricted without describing the access conditions
What a reproducibility reviewer expects at PDR
PDR draws referees who re-derive a denominator or re-run a decomposition, and who care that licensed data
were handled correctly. Calibrate the package against the data class you actually used.
| Data class | Typical source | Deposit obligation |
|---|
| Fully public | HMD, HFD, WPP, published vital statistics, World Bank/WDI | Extract code + constructed analytic file (where license permits) + persistent ID |
| Public-but-licensed | IPUMS, DHS, redistribution-restricted census | Extract specification + code, not raw microdata; cite the provider's persistent access path |
| Restricted/confidential | Linked administrative records, RDC-only census, linked registers | Code + synthetic stand-in file + exact access-conditions note |
Referee-pushback patterns and the PDR-specific fix
- "I cannot tell which WPP/HMD vintage or DHS round produced these numbers." -> Record the release label
and download date in the README and a code comment; vintages and rounds revise the figures.
- "You posted DHS microdata — that violates the license." -> Remove raw microdata; ship the DHS extract
request specification and the cleaning code, and cite DHS as the persistent access path.
- "Your bootstrap/projection intervals are not reproducible." -> Set and report a seed for every
resampling and simulation step.
- "You say data are restricted but give no way to obtain them." -> Name the data enclave or application
pathway and the access conditions; a bare "restricted" reads as evasion.
Output format
【Data statement】public / restricted / on request — drafted with persistent ID? [Y/N]
【Repository】FAIR repo + DOI/accession (not personal URL)? [Y/N]
【Licensed data handled】extract code, not raw microdata, for DHS/census? [Y/N/NA]
【Reproducible code】master script + comments + recorded versions + seeds? [Y/N]
【Exhibits match deposit?】[Y/N]
【ORCID + declarations】submitting-author ORCID + funding/conflicts/ethics? [Y/N]
【Next】popdevr-review-process
Supplementary resources
