Use when documenting the coverage account of an Annual Review of Sociology (ARSoc) review and the transparency obligations of any systematic-review search or meta-analysis the review itself contains. Builds the search/selection record and the reproducibility plan; it does not gather the literature (arsoc-literature-synthesis) or appraise individual studies' designs (arsoc-comprehensiveness-and-balance).
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
Use when documenting the coverage account of an Annual Review of Sociology (ARSoc) review and the transparency obligations of any systematic-review search or meta-analysis the review itself contains. Builds the search/selection record and the reproducibility plan; it does not gather the literature (arsoc-literature-synthesis) or appraise individual studies' designs (arsoc-comprehensiveness-and-balance).
Transparency & Reproducibility for a Review (arsoc-transparency-and-reproducibility)
When to trigger
The synthesis is settled and you must show how the literature was searched and selected
The review reports a quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis, meta-regression, citation analysis) of its own
A Committee member or referee is likely to ask "how did you decide what to include?"
You want the coverage account to pre-empt the predictable "you omit literature X" pushback
What "transparency" means in a review with no primary data
An ARSoc review reports no new data of its own, so the usual replication-package machinery (raw data, estimation code, a reproducibility README of your analysis) does not apply to the review's claims about the world. Transparency instead bites on two things you do produce:
The coverage account — a documented, near-PRISMA-style record of how the literature was searched, screened, and selected. This is what makes "comprehensive" a verifiable claim rather than a boast.
Any analysis the review itself runs — if the review contributes a meta-analysis, a citation/bibliometric analysis, or a re-coded dataset of studies, that artefact must be reproducible and depositable like any quantitative work.
Distinguish the two clearly: you are not defending an identification strategy of your own (there is none); you are documenting how you found and weighed others' work, and reproducing any synthesis you actually computed.
The coverage account (near-PRISMA, adapted for sociology)
Carry forward the saturation log from arsoc-literature-synthesis into a brief, sharable record:
Element
What to document
Databases & dates
Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science, Scopus, JSTOR, Google Scholar — with search dates
Search terms & traditions
keyword strings and the theoretical-tradition names swept
Inclusion / exclusion
what counted (years, methods/modes, languages, publication types) and what was excluded and why
Mode coverage
how qualitative, computational, demographic, and theoretical work were captured (not just quant)
Saturation
where forward/backward snowballing stopped yielding new must-cites
Counts
rough numbers screened vs. discussed, so "comprehensive" is auditable
Sociology reviews are rarely strict PRISMA systematic reviews, but a near-PRISMA narrative of the search makes the coverage defensible and is increasingly expected. Confirm whether the topic warrants a formal PRISMA flow on the author pages (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
When the review runs its own analysis
If the review contributes a meta-analysis or bibliometric study:
Deposit data + code in a public repository (OSF, Dataverse, Zenodo) so the synthesis is reproducible; cite the DOI.
State the protocol: inclusion criteria, effect-size extraction, coding rules, weighting, heterogeneity and publication-bias diagnostics.
Pool only commensurable studies — never reduce qualitative or theoretical work to a spurious effect size (see arsoc-tables-figures).
Make the coding reproducible: a second coder could re-derive your study-level codes from your codebook.
