| name | amanthro-transparency-and-data |
| description | Use when handling research ethics, consent, community accountability, and data/transparency for an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript — informed consent, anonymization, protection of vulnerable interlocutors, heritage and repatriation obligations, and what (and what NOT) to share. At AA this is an ethics-and-accountability skill grounded in the AAA ethics principles and an ethics of care. Plans the ethics and transparency; it does not grant waivers. |
Ethics, Consent & Accountability (amanthro-transparency-and-data)
At AA, "transparency" is not primarily a reproducibility package — it is research ethics and
accountability. The AAA's Principles of Professional Responsibility (do no harm; obtain informed
consent; be open and honest; weigh competing obligations to people, communities, scholarship, and the
profession) govern the work, and AA practices an explicit ethics of care in its editorial process.
The single most important rule: protecting people can override sharing data. Design ethics in from
the start (run this skill early and before submission).
When to trigger
- Planning consent, anonymization, and accountability into a project (do this early)
- Working with vulnerable, criminalized, Indigenous, or displaced communities
- Handling human remains, sacred objects, genetic/biological samples, or cultural heritage
- Deciding what materials, transcripts, images, or data can — and cannot — be shared
- Preparing the manuscript's ethics statement before submission
AAA ethics core (anchor every decision here)
- Do no harm. Anticipate harm to interlocutors and communities — reputational, legal, physical,
cultural — and design to prevent it. When sharing would endanger people, do not share.
- Informed consent is ongoing, not a one-time signature: people understand what participation and
publication mean, and can withdraw. For media, consent covers that use of that image/recording.
- Be open and honest about your role, funders, and purposes with those you study and with readers.
- Weigh competing obligations transparently — to people studied, to scholarship, to communities,
and to the discipline — and explain how you resolved conflicts.
Anonymization & protection of interlocutors
- Anonymize people and often places (pseudonyms, composite or masked details) where exposure could
cause harm; state your anonymization strategy and its limits.
- For vulnerable or criminalized communities, treat confidentiality as protective, not optional;
consider not collecting or not retaining data that could be subpoenaed or leaked.
- Images: blur/withhold identifiers per consent; some images should not be published at all
(see
amanthro-tables-figures).
Heritage, repatriation & biological materials
- Cultural heritage & sacred objects: respect community authority; some knowledge/objects should not
be reproduced or published. Follow NAGPRA and relevant national/Indigenous protocols.
- Human remains & repatriation: document provenance and descendant-community consent; align with
NAGPRA/repatriation obligations; do not present ancestral remains as ungoverned data.
- Genetic / biological data: community consent (incl. group-level harms), benefit-sharing where
appropriate; deposit only where consent and protocols permit.
What about data sharing? (open-but-careful)
- AA's Wiley compliance row does not impose a journal-specific data-sharing tier; share what you
ethically can (e.g., codebooks, non-sensitive materials, analysis details for quantitative subfields)
and document why sensitive data are withheld with an access/contact path where appropriate.
- For biological/archaeological quantitative work, normal reproducibility hygiene applies: documented
procedures, pinned versions, seeds — subject to the ethics constraints above. Sharing never trumps
consent or community harm. Follow any Research Exchange data-availability prompt at upload.
Anti-patterns
- Treating ethics as IRB paperwork done once, not an ongoing relationship of care
- Publishing identifiable details/images that endanger interlocutors to look more transparent
- Reproducing sacred/heritage materials or ancestral remains against community wishes
- Extractive research: taking knowledge/samples with no consent, benefit, or accountability
- A "view from nowhere" that hides funders, role, or competing obligations
- Sharing sensitive data for reproducibility credit when it exposes people to harm
Output format
【AAA ethics】do-no-harm / consent / honesty / competing-obligations addressed? [Y/N]
【Consent】ongoing + covers publication & media use? [Y/N]
【Anonymization】strategy + limits stated; vulnerable interlocutors protected? [Y/N]
【Heritage/remains/biological】provenance + community authority + repatriation respected? [Y/N/NA]
【Data sharing】what is shared / what is ethically withheld + why
【Next】amanthro-review-process
Supplementary resources
