Crim data and transparency

Data & Transparency (crim-data-and-transparency)

Criminology research increasingly travels with its data and code. Expert reviewers and editors expect that your reported tables and figures could be reproduced. Wiley's general data-sharing guidance requires a Data Availability Statement for research- and synthesis-based articles, while the current Wiley ACT row for Criminology lists the journal-specific data-sharing policy field as No Policy. Treat that as: prepare a credible statement and package, but do not claim a journal-specific mandatory repository deposit unless the live portal requires it.

When to trigger

• Building the reproducibility/replication package and the data-availability statement
• Deciding whether and how to preregister a prospective study
• Working with restricted data (juvenile records, NACJD restricted-use, agency administrative data)
• A reviewer asked how the analysis can be reproduced or the data accessed

What to prepare

1. Data-availability statement. State where data and code live (e.g., ICPSR / NACJD, OSF, a Wiley/Dryad repository) or why they cannot be shared. Use Wiley DAS templates and the live portal wording; do not imply mandatory deposit where restricted data make that impossible.
2. Reproducibility package. Data (or synthetic/derived substitutes), a master script that regenerates every table and figure, a README documenting provenance and construction, seeds for stochastic steps, and pinned software/package versions.
3. Preregistration (prospective work). Lodge a pre-analysis plan (OSF Registries, AsPredicted) and mark registered vs. exploratory analyses. Wiley ACT currently says Criminology does not accept preprints, so separate preregistration from manuscript preprint posting.
4. Open-science badges. Wiley offers Open Data, Open Materials, and Preregistered badges via the Center for Open Science on participating journals; follow the live submission prompts.

Restricted criminal-justice data (common in criminology)

• Explain why the data cannot be shared (juvenile confidentiality, agency/IRB restrictions, DUAs).
• Provide README instructions on exactly how others obtain it — the application process, the archive (often NACJD restricted-use), enclave requirements, and contacts.
• Where feasible, provide synthetic or de-identified derived data so the code can be exercised.

Build-as-you-go checklist

• Data-availability statement drafted to Wiley/current portal wording
• One master script regenerates every table and figure from raw/constructed data
• README documents data provenance, construction, and how to reproduce each exhibit
• Seeds set/reported for every stochastic step (bootstrap, RI, EM-based trajectory fits)
• Software/package versions pinned (renv.lock / requirements.txt / recorded installs)
• Restricted data: exemption note + access path (NACJD/agency) + synthetic substitute where feasible
• Preregistration linked (anonymized) where applicable; registered vs. exploratory marked

Anti-patterns

• Treating data/transparency as a post-acceptance afterthought
• A data-availability statement that says "available on request" with no archive or access path
• Depositing code that does not actually reproduce the printed tables/figures
• Claiming data are restricted without giving an access route or synthetic substitute
• Undocumented, un-seeded, unpinned code that "works on my machine"

Restricted-data transparency decision table (criminology specifics)

Criminal-justice data is often restricted — juvenile records, agency systems, NACJD restricted-use files behind enclaves. The ASC/Wiley open-science direction still expects a credible reproducibility path, so the answer is rarely "cannot share." Match your situation to a tier.

Data situation	Acceptable transparency move	What to deposit
Public file (e.g., NCVS, UCR/NIBRS extracts)	full open deposit	data + master script + README
NACJD restricted-use	exemption note + exact application path	code + synthetic/derived data + access steps
Agency / juvenile confidential records	DUA or confidentiality exemption + contact	code + simulated data matching schema

The principle: even when raw data cannot travel, the code and a runnable substitute should. Confirm the final statement wording against the journal's current submission guidelines.

Worked vignette: a restricted-data statement (illustrative)

A study uses a state juvenile-justice extract that cannot be redistributed. The package ships a master script regenerating all 8 exhibits; a README documenting construction and the application process (agency contact, IRB requirement, ~12-week window, illustrative); a synthetic dataset matching the schema so reviewers can run the script; and seeds for the EM-based trajectory fit. The statement names the restriction, the legal basis, and the access route — not "available on request."

Transparency-stage referee pushback (with the Criminology fix)

• "'Available on request' is not a path." Fix: name the archive (NACJD/ICPSR) or the agency steps and contact.
• "Code doesn't reproduce Table 3." Fix: one master script regenerates every exhibit; verify before deposit.
• "Restricted data with no way in." Fix: give the access route plus a synthetic substitute.

Output format

【Data-availability statement】drafted to Wiley/current portal wording? [Y/N]
【Reproduces tables/figures?】master script verified locally? [Y/N]
【Documentation】README + provenance + seeds + pinned versions? [Y/N]
【Restricted data?】exemption note + access path (NACJD/agency) + synthetic data?
【Preregistration】lodged + registered vs. exploratory marked? [Y/N/NA]
【Badges】Open Data / Materials / Preregistered targeted if portal offers them? [list / NA]
【Next】crim-review-process

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — ICPSR/NACJD archiving, preregistration, reproducibility tooling
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — Wiley DAS guidance, ACT data-policy/preprint fields, and open-badge sources