geb-replication-and-data-policy

Replication & Data Policy (geb-replication-and-data-policy)

When to trigger

• You have experimental data, simulation code, or solver inputs and are unsure what GEB requires
• You assumed GEB has a mandatory data archive (it does not) and are budgeting effort accordingly
• You want to make a theory paper's numerical examples reproducible
• An accepted-stage checklist is being assembled

The GEB data policy — encouraged, not required

This is a meaningful distinction for a journal that publishes experimental work: GEB does not operate a mandatory data/code replication archive comparable to the AEA journals (AEJ/AER), Econometrica, or the JAE Data Archive. GEB follows Elsevier's "encourages and enables" research-data stance (Option C): authors are invited to deposit data and code in a repository (e.g., Mendeley Data, free and open access), to include a data-availability statement, or to publish a Data Brief — but deposit is not a condition of publication. Do not assume a required openICPSR-style archive; verify the current wording on the Guide for Authors (some details here are 待核实 — drawn from secondary sources).

Even though it is optional, sharing well is good practice and pre-empts referee doubts about your experiment or computation.

What to prepare (voluntarily, but recommended)

For experimental papers

• Raw and cleaned data plus the analysis scripts that produce every table and figure.
• Experiment code (oTree / z-Tree) and the instructions shown to subjects.
• A README describing variables, sessions, treatments, and how to run the pipeline.
• An IRB / ethics note where applicable.

For theory papers with computation

• The scripts and solver inputs (e.g., Gambit files, nashpy/Python notebooks) that generate every numerical example, figure, and counterexample.
• Pinned versions and reported seeds so examples regenerate deterministically.
• A short README mapping each script to the corresponding result in the paper.

Statement and deposit

• Add a data-availability statement even when depositing voluntarily.
• Deposit on a stable repository (Mendeley Data, Zenodo, or OSF) and cite it.
• Disclose any generative-AI use in the dedicated declaration section (separate from data policy, but part of the same transparency package).

Why voluntary sharing still pays at GEB

No mandate does not mean referees ignore reproducibility — the check simply

moves from an editorial gate to referee judgment:

• Experimental referees routinely ask for instructions-to-subjects and

session structure; deposited oTree/z-Tree code and instructions let you

answer with a link instead of a rewritten appendix.

• Theory referees who doubt a counterexample may recompute it; a Gambit

file or notebook that regenerates the example turns suspicion into a

two-minute verification.

• A visible deposit also strengthens the revision round: geb-rebuttal

responses can cite the exact script rather than describe computations.

Worked micro-example: the availability statement

• Weak: "Data are available from the authors upon reasonable request." —

unverifiable, and gives a referee nothing to act on.

• Stronger (voluntary deposit): "Experimental instructions, oTree code, raw

session data, and the scripts reproducing every table and figure are

deposited at [repository DOI]; seeds and pinned versions are in the README."

— checkable today. If ethics or consent limits sharing, state exactly what

is withheld and why instead of defaulting to on-request language.

Anti-patterns

• Assuming GEB will block publication without a deposited archive (it will not)
• ...but also shipping an experiment with no reproducible analysis path
• Numerical examples with no seeds or pinned versions, so referees cannot regenerate them
• A data file with no README or variable documentation
• Confusing GEB's optional policy with the mandatory archives of AER/Econometrica/JAE
• An "upon reasonable request" statement standing in for a plan you could deposit today

Reproducibility pass for Games and Economic Behavior

Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the primitives, equilibrium concept, comparative statics, and proof or experiment boundary; then test whether the manuscript addresses game theorists who ask what the model teaches beyond a clever example.

• Primary move: Name data, code, environment, disclosure limits, and archive/deposit route; unresolved proprietary or ethics barriers must be explicit.
• Decision ledger: return claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
• Neighbor test: compare against JET for theory abstraction, Theoretical Economics for compact theory contribution, Experimental Economics for experiment-first designs; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
• Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

Output format

【Paper type】experimental / computational-theory / pure-theory
【GEB requirement】sharing encouraged, NOT mandatory (verify wording)
【Prepared】data + code + README + (exp) instructions/IRB? [Y/N each]
【Reproducible computation】seeds + pinned versions + run_all? [Y/N / NA]
【Deposit plan】Mendeley Data / Zenodo / OSF + availability statement? [Y/N]
【Next step】geb-review-process or geb-submission