jru-replication-package

Replication Package (jru-replication-package)

When to trigger

• The paper has experimental or field results and you need a Data Availability Statement for the Springer submission
• z-Tree / oTree / Qualtrics materials and the structural estimation code exist but are not organized for a stranger to run
• A referee or the editor asks whether the elicitation could be reproduced from the materials provided
• Decisions about what data can be shared (human-subjects constraints) versus what must be documented are unsettled

What JRU / Springer expect

JRU requires a Data Availability Statement on original research articles, and Springer strongly encourages sharing the underlying research data (deposit in a recognized repository, with a citable DOI where possible). For this journal the package has two faces that generic econ replication advice misses: the experiment must be reproducible as a procedure (instructions, screens, incentive rules — not just the resulting dataset), and the structural estimation must be re-runnable (code that recovers the reported parameters). Exact policy wording and any mandatory-deposit details are 待核实 — verify on the official submission guidelines.

The two-face package

Human-subjects and proprietary data

• De-identify subject data; document the IRB/ethics approval. If raw data cannot be shared, share the derived analysis data plus enough documentation to reproduce results.
• For insurer/administrative VSL-type data, state the access terms and provide the code so the pipeline is auditable even if the data are restricted.
• Pre-registration (if the study was pre-registered): link the registry and report deviations.

Layout that a stranger can run

A clean package for a JRU elicitation or estimation paper has a predictable shape:

• /instructions — participant-facing text, decision screens, comprehension checks, payment protocol
• /experiment — z-Tree/oTree/Qualtrics source, with the random-incentive rule visible in code
• /data — de-identified subject choices, session metadata, randomization seeds, codebook
• /code — a single master script that runs raw → cleaned → every table/figure, plus the structural estimation
• README — software versions, run order, expected outputs, and the data-access path for any restricted inputs

The test is blunt: a colleague with the repository and nothing else should be able to (a) re-run the experiment and (b) reproduce every reported parameter.

Writing the Data Availability Statement

• Match the statement to reality: if data are restricted, say so and give the access route, do not over-promise.
• Cite the deposit with its DOI/repository where one exists; a citable archive is stronger than "available on request."
• Cross-check the statement against the actual deposit before submission — a mismatch is a common, avoidable editorial flag.

Checklist

• A Data Availability Statement is drafted and matches what is actually deposited
• Experiment: full instructions, screens, comprehension checks, and incentive rules are included (procedure reproducible)
• Experiment software source (z-Tree/oTree/Qualtrics) and randomization seeds provided
• One master script regenerates every table and figure from raw inputs
• Structural code recovers the reported parameters; environment/versions documented
• Data de-identified; IRB/ethics approval documented; proprietary-data access terms stated
• Pre-registration linked and deviations reported (if applicable)
• Policy specifics verified against official guidelines or marked 待核实

Common reproducibility failures in risk papers

• Seeds not saved, so the randomized lottery sequence cannot be regenerated — the experiment is not reproducible even with the software.
• Hand-edited intermediates between raw choices and the estimation, leaving a gap no script bridges.
• Estimation that does not converge to the reported numbers on a clean machine because tolerances, starting values, or package versions were not pinned.
• Comprehension-check data dropped silently in cleaning, so a stranger cannot reproduce the analysis sample.

A quick self-test: clone the package into a fresh directory, run the master script end to end, and confirm it reproduces the headline parameter without manual intervention.

Anti-patterns

• Depositing the dataset but not the instructions — for an elicitation paper the procedure is the method
• A "results.do" that assumes hand-edited intermediate files no one else has
• Sharing identifiable subject data, or omitting the IRB statement
• A Data Availability Statement that promises data not actually in the package
• Treating Springer's data policy as optional; the statement is required even when data are restricted

Worked vignette (illustrative)

An ambiguity-elicitation paper deposits only the cleaned choice matrix. A referee cannot tell whether the matching-probabilities task was incentive-compatible as run. The JRU-ready package adds the oTree source, the on-screen instructions and comprehension checks, the random-incentive payment rule, the session seeds, and a single script that goes from raw choices to the reported α-MEU estimate — so the elicitation and the estimate are both reproducible.

Output format

【Journal】Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
【Skill】jru-replication-package
【Verdict】ready / complete materials / fix access
【DAS drafted】matches deposit [Y/N]
【Experiment reproducible】instructions+screens+incentives+seeds [Y/N]
【Code reproducible】master script regenerates all exhibits [Y/N]
【Ethics/data】IRB documented; de-identified; access terms stated [Y/N]
【Policy status】verified / 待核实
【Next skill】jru-referee-strategy