aer-replication

name	aer-replication
description	Use when assembling the AEA Data and Code Availability deposit for an AER, AER:Insights, or AEJ acceptance, writing the README, or auditing a replication package before the AEA Data Editor review. Implements the current AEA policy, including the February 2026 Data and Code Availability Policy.

AER Replication

Overview

Prior to acceptance, every empirical, simulation, or experimental paper submitted to an AEA journal must provide data, code, and a complete README sufficient for an independent researcher to reproduce every reported result. The AEA Data Editor's Office now performs a computational reproducibility check before final acceptance, and a failed check delays publication by weeks or months.

This skill produces an AEA-compliant deposit on the first try.

When to Use

• A conditional acceptance arrived and the deposit deadline is set
• Drafting the README at any point in the project (recommended: from day one)
• An AEA Data Editor report flagged the deposit
• Preparing a deposit for openICPSR

Current AEA Data and Code Availability Policy (February 2026)

Three pillars:

1. Data deposit — all data the paper uses, or full provenance documentation for data that cannot be public
2. Code deposit — all code that produces every reported number, table, and figure
3. README — a single document instructing a replicator on how to run everything

Materials must be deposited in an openly accessible trusted repository. The strongly encouraged repository is the AEA Data and Code Repository at openICPSR, which gives the Data Editor automatic access to draft deposits.

Forms and Statements

The current policy centers on the Data and Code Availability Statement embedded in the README, plus any forms the editorial office sends during the revision stage (for example, confirming whether a private copy of restricted data can be shared with the Data Editor for verification). Exact form titles change between policy revisions, so:

• Build the README Data Availability Statement to the AEA template (see below).
• Complete whatever forms the editorial office provides at the revision stage — do not invent substitute forms or assume titles carried over from an older policy cycle.

Repository Structure

replication-package/
├── README.pdf                       (required for final AEA deposit)
├── README.md                        (optional editable source)
├── LICENSE                         (commonly MIT or CC-BY for code; data per source license)
├── data/
│   ├── raw/                        (original files as obtained, never modified)
│   ├── intermediate/               (cleaned analytic datasets)
│   └── codebook/
│       └── source-register.md      (source inventory, crosswalk, derived files)
├── code/
│   ├── 00_setup.do                 (or .R, .py)
│   ├── 01_clean.do
│   ├── 02_analysis.do
│   ├── 03_tables.do
│   └── 04_figures.do
├── output/
│   ├── tables/
│   └── figures/
└── docs/
    ├── exhibit-register.md
    ├── data_appendix.pdf
    └── computing_environment.txt

README Required Sections

The AEA Data Editor's office publishes a template and requires a README document in PDF format in the uppermost directory of the replication package. Keep README.md as editable source if useful, but render README.pdf for the final deposit. Required sections:

1. Overview

One paragraph: what the package does, what paper it accompanies, what software is required.

2. Data Availability and Provenance Statement

For every dataset used, state:

• Source (with URL or institution)
• Citation
• License or terms of access
• Date accessed
• Whether the data is included in the deposit, and if not, why not

If data cannot be deposited (proprietary, restricted, IRB), the author must:

1. Commit to preserving data and code for ≥ 5 years
2. Commit to assisting reasonable replication requests
3. Make the code publicly available
4. Document the data source thoroughly enough for an independent researcher to obtain it

3. Dataset List

A table of every file in data/, with columns: Filename | Description | Source | Notes. Keep data/codebook/source-register.md synchronized with this section so every raw source, derived file, access restriction, and analytic variable has one auditable home.

4. Computational Requirements

Operating system, software version, packages, estimated runtime, peak memory. Example:

Software: Stata 18.0 MP, R 4.4.1
Stata packages: reghdfe (6.12), ftools (2.49), did (1.3.1), rdrobust (9.2)
R packages: fixest (0.12.1), did (2.1.2), modelsummary (2.1.1)
Hardware: standard laptop (8 GB RAM); full run completes in ~25 minutes.

5. Description of Programs / Code

What each script does and the order to run them. State the master script (e.g., run_all.do).

6. Instructions to Replicators

A literal step-by-step:

1. Download this archive and unzip to a working directory.
2. Open Stata 18; install dependencies via `setup/install_packages.do`.
3. Edit line 12 of `00_setup.do` to point to the working directory.
4. Run `do run_all.do`. Total runtime: ~25 minutes.
5. All tables and figures are written to `output/`.

7. List of Tables and Programs

A second table mapping each exhibit in the published paper to the script that produces it:

Table/Figure	Script	Line in Script	Output File
Table 1	03_tables.do	12	output/tables/tab1.tex
Table 2	03_tables.do	67	output/tables/tab2.tex
Figure 1	04_figures.do	8	output/figures/fig1.pdf

For a fuller audit, keep docs/exhibit-register.md synchronized with this README table. The register should also record the supported claim, exact sample size, estimator or statistic, table/figure note, and accessibility evidence.

Coding Discipline for Reproducibility

Adopt from day one. Retrofitting is expensive.

General

• One master script that runs the entire pipeline end-to-end
• Relative paths only — data/raw/foo.csv, never /Users/yourname/...
• Set the random seed explicitly in any stochastic procedure
• Document package versions: in Stata, install from a setup script and record which / ado describe output; vendor an ado/ snapshot if exact SSC versions are required. In R, use renv or groundhog; in Python, use requirements.txt with exact versions
• Log files for every run, saved to logs/

Stata

• version 18.0 at the top of every do-file
• set seed before any randomization
• Keep display tweaks such as set more off in the master script, not hidden inside analysis scripts
• Use reghdfe over xtreg, fe for performance and clarity
• Comment heavily — Julian Reif's Stata Coding Guide is a reasonable standard

R

• set.seed() at the top of every analysis script
• renv::snapshot() to lock the package environment
• Avoid loading data with read.csv and writing with write.csv — explicit data.table::fread / fwrite with column types

Python

• requirements.txt with == pins
• numpy.random.default_rng(seed=...) for new-style RNG
• Jupyter notebooks acceptable only if accompanied by an equivalent .py script

AEA Data Editor — What They Actually Check

1. Does the README exist and follow the template?
2. Does the master script run end-to-end without errors?
3. Do the produced numbers match the published paper?
4. Are all data sources documented with provenance?
5. Is the data deposit complete, or properly justified if restricted?

If yes to all: Approved, paper proceeds to publication. If no: Revisions required, with a public report.

Common failure modes flagged in published Data Editor reports:

• Hardcoded absolute paths
• Missing package versions
• Master script that errors on a clean machine
• Tables in the deposit that differ from the published version
• Restricted-data papers with no provenance documentation
• README that says "see paper" instead of explaining the steps

openICPSR Workflow

1. Create deposit on https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/aea
2. Upload files so the data and code are unzipped inside the repository; avoid one opaque top-level ZIP except for rare repository-approved exceptions
3. Fill metadata: citation, abstract, keywords, geographic coverage, time period
4. Submit; the AEA Data Editor's office reviews
5. Address feedback in the deposit and resubmit
6. Approval triggers DOI assignment and publication

Restricted Data Special Cases

If data is restricted:

• Provide access instructions in the README — exact dataset name, agency, application process, approximate cost, expected turnaround
• Provide code that would run if the data were available
• Provide sample synthetic data with the same schema if possible, so the code can be smoke-tested
• Consider depositing intermediate aggregates (cell-suppressed counts) that allow partial replication

Repository Resources

Bundled with the installed skill, no repository checkout needed --- read it before the repo resources below:

• references/aea-package-checklist.md --- AEA compliance checklist, README sections, openICPSR deposit steps

When working from the AER-skills repository or plugin bundle, load only the relevant resource:

• Deposit skeleton: examples/replication-package-skeleton/
• Data source register template: examples/replication-package-skeleton/data/codebook/source-register.md
• Exhibit register template: examples/replication-package-skeleton/docs/exhibit-register.md
• Language template: templates/stata/, templates/r/, or templates/python/
• Classic replication examples and repository links: examples/aer-exemplars.md

Pre-Deposit Checklist

• Master script runs from clean state on a different machine
• All paths are relative
• Random seeds set
• All software and package versions documented
• README follows AEA template
• Every published table and figure mapped to its producing script
• Data Availability statement covers every dataset
• Data/code files are visible in the repository, not hidden behind one opaque ZIP
• Required AEA data/code forms are complete or ready for the editorial office
• Repository structure matches standard layout
• License files present

Handoff

DEPOSIT TYPE: <public-data | restricted-data | hybrid>
README STATUS: <complete | incomplete>
REPRODUCIBILITY CHECK: <self-tested clean / not yet>
RESTRICTED DATA HANDLING: <n/a | provenance documented>
NEXT SKILL: aer-submission

Anti-Patterns

• Waiting until acceptance to start the deposit
• Treating the README as documentation for collaborators, not for an unknown replicator
• Depositing the JEL appendix tables but not the regressions that produced them
• "All code available from the authors upon request" — does not satisfy the policy
• Uploading one giant ZIP whose contents the repository cannot display
• A deposit that runs only with packages from 2018 — pin versions but use current stable releases