aerj-transparency-and-data-policy — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited aerj-transparency-and-data-policy (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
AERJ is an AERA journal: it expects reporting that is warranted and transparent, per the AERA reporting standards, and adherence to the AERA Code of Ethics, which expects authors to make data available for reanalysis after publication (within confidentiality and legal limits). Build transparency in as you write, not after acceptance.
Research — adequate evidence (warrant) and explicit logic of inquiry (transparency), for both quantitative and qualitative** work. Humanities-oriented work follows the companion 2009 standards.
interpretations** for reanalysis after results are published, subject to participant confidentiality and legal/IRB limits. Document provenance and construction.
reported results: master script + README + pinned versions + seeds.
evidence, audit trail, reflexivity — rather than dumping raw transcripts. QDR supports controlled access where raw data are sensitive.
as state SLDS / district agreements).
AERA reporting standards and the Code of Ethics apply across traditions, but what "available for reanalysis" means depends on the data. Match your obligation to the row below.
| Data type | What sharing/transparency means here | Common shortfall |
|---|---|---|
| Public-use survey (e.g., national longitudinal) | Code + documentation regenerating results | "Available on request" with no script |
| Restricted administrative (state/district) | Access path + license + synthetic substitute | Restriction claimed, no path given |
| Original qualitative | Coding scheme, exemplars, audit trail, reflexivity | Raw transcripts dumped or nothing shown |
| Mixed | Both quant materials and qual analytic trail | One strand documented, the other opaque |
An AERJ policy/institutional study links a state longitudinal data system to a district intervention. The data cannot be shared, so the transparency package states the reason (SLDS confidentiality and a data-use agreement), gives the application path to the state agency, and ships synthetic data with the same schema so the master script runs end to end. The README documents construction of every derived variable and pins package versions; seeds are set so the illustrative 0.13 SD estimate regenerates exactly. A weak version would write "data restricted" and stop — leaving no way to inspect the logic of inquiry the AERA standard requires.
exemplar evidence, reflexivity), not raw data.
confirm any policy wording against the journal's current submission guidelines.
【Reporting standard met】empirical-social-science (quant/qual)? [Y/N]
【Data availability】shareable / access-path / synthetic? [which]
【Documentation】README + provenance + seeds + pinned versions? [Y/N]
【Qualitative transparency】coding + evidence + audit trail + reflexivity? [Y/N/NA]
【Restricted data】rationale + access + substitute?
【Next】aerj-review-process../../resources/external_tools.md — reproducibility tooling, QDR, preregistration registries../../resources/official-source-map.md — AERA reporting standards + Code of Ethics~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.