Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

amanthro-transparency-and-data

Use when handling research ethics, consent, community accountability, and data/transparency for an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript — informed consent, anonymization, protection of vulnerable interlocutors, heritage and repatriation obligations, and what (and what NOT) to share. At AA this is an ethics-and-accountability skill grounded in the AAA ethics principles and an ethics of care. Plans the ethics and transparency; it does not grant waivers.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md5.4 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Ethics, Consent & Accountability (amanthro-transparency-and-data)

At AA, "transparency" is not primarily a reproducibility package — it is research ethics and accountability. The AAA's Principles of Professional Responsibility (do no harm; obtain informed consent; be open and honest; weigh competing obligations to people, communities, scholarship, and the profession) govern the work, and AA practices an explicit ethics of care in its editorial process. The single most important rule: protecting people can override sharing data. Design ethics in from the start (run this skill early and before submission).

When to trigger

  • Planning consent, anonymization, and accountability into a project (do this early)
  • Working with vulnerable, criminalized, Indigenous, or displaced communities
  • Handling human remains, sacred objects, genetic/biological samples, or cultural heritage
  • Deciding what materials, transcripts, images, or data can — and cannot — be shared
  • Preparing the manuscript's ethics statement before submission

AAA ethics core (anchor every decision here)

  1. Do no harm. Anticipate harm to interlocutors and communities — reputational, legal, physical, cultural — and design to prevent it. When sharing would endanger people, do not share.
  2. Informed consent is ongoing, not a one-time signature: people understand what participation and publication mean, and can withdraw. For media, consent covers that use of that image/recording.
  3. Be open and honest about your role, funders, and purposes with those you study and with readers.
  4. Weigh competing obligations transparently — to people studied, to scholarship, to communities, and to the discipline — and explain how you resolved conflicts.

Anonymization & protection of interlocutors

  • Anonymize people and often places (pseudonyms, composite or masked details) where exposure could cause harm; state your anonymization strategy and its limits.
  • For vulnerable or criminalized communities, treat confidentiality as protective, not optional; consider not collecting or not retaining data that could be subpoenaed or leaked.
  • Images: blur/withhold identifiers per consent; some images should not be published at all (see amanthro-tables-figures).

Heritage, repatriation & biological materials

  • Cultural heritage & sacred objects: respect community authority; some knowledge/objects should not be reproduced or published. Follow NAGPRA and relevant national/Indigenous protocols.
  • Human remains & repatriation: document provenance and descendant-community consent; align with NAGPRA/repatriation obligations; do not present ancestral remains as ungoverned data.
  • Genetic / biological data: community consent (incl. group-level harms), benefit-sharing where appropriate; deposit only where consent and protocols permit.

What about data sharing? (open-but-careful)

  • AA's Wiley compliance row does not impose a journal-specific data-sharing tier; share what you ethically can (e.g., codebooks, non-sensitive materials, analysis details for quantitative subfields) and document why sensitive data are withheld with an access/contact path where appropriate.
  • For biological/archaeological quantitative work, normal reproducibility hygiene applies: documented procedures, pinned versions, seeds — subject to the ethics constraints above. Sharing never trumps consent or community harm. Follow any Research Exchange data-availability prompt at upload.

Anti-patterns

  • Treating ethics as IRB paperwork done once, not an ongoing relationship of care
  • Publishing identifiable details/images that endanger interlocutors to look more transparent
  • Reproducing sacred/heritage materials or ancestral remains against community wishes
  • Extractive research: taking knowledge/samples with no consent, benefit, or accountability
  • A "view from nowhere" that hides funders, role, or competing obligations
  • Sharing sensitive data for reproducibility credit when it exposes people to harm

Output format

【AAA ethics】do-no-harm / consent / honesty / competing-obligations addressed? [Y/N]
【Consent】ongoing + covers publication & media use? [Y/N]
【Anonymization】strategy + limits stated; vulnerable interlocutors protected? [Y/N]
【Heritage/remains/biological】provenance + community authority + repatriation respected? [Y/N/NA]
【Data sharing】what is shared / what is ethically withheld + why
【Next】amanthro-review-process

Supplementary resources

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact release.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

See all skills by brycewang-stanford

Report a problem with this skill