All chapters: organizational cleanup

[bbdaniels]

This PR will include:

• Updates of book title
• Updates of chapter names and file names
• Update of Introduction and appropriate references to chapters/content location
• Take decision on inclusion of "Research Design" appendix (old Ch3): program-evaluation.pdf
• Supersede and close D4di manuscript re org #439

Close the following:

• Close Update locations in intro section after chapter re-orgnization #472
• Close New Title #418
• Close Measurement framework - narrative an connecting-the-dots suggestions #468
• Close Measurement framework - move to wiki suggestions #467
• Close Monitoring data: treatment compliance or take-up #464
• Close Ch3 re write - combining research design and randomization #448
• Close Align what we say about master data and unit-of-obs in Measurement chapter and tidy section #463
• Close Ch 3 to dos #462
• Close Finalizing data collection - where to fit it? #449
• Close Research ethics is homeless - where should it go? #447
• Close IRB / research ethics text needs a home #440
• Close ch 2: generalize master scripts #433
• Close Chapters 1A and 1B - introductory paragraphs #429
• Close Split chapter 1 #425
• Close Intro: address Arianna's comments #424
• Close Book structure #423
• Close Ch 3: review structure #421
• Close Appendix with condensed time line: #417
• Close Primary data -> original data #415
• Close Data set -> dataset #413
• Close move latex special characters text to wiki or latex training #404
• Close Ch7: publishing replication package #400
• Close Ch2: code editor (move detailed content to wiki) #391
• Close Links to external resources #389
• Close Final review - 'original' data instead of 'primary' data #387
• Close Ch5: links for pre-analysis plans #297
• Close Final review #295
• Close Ch5: data quality assurance #260
• Close Link to master data content #250

[bbdaniels]

Opening this for review from all.

@kbjarkefur - I noticed that even though I am now able to compile the manuscript I still am not getting the commit hash:

[luizaandrade]

Thanks, Ben!
Minor comments added inline :)

[mariaruth]

This looks good, but we still need to address Arianna's comments regarding the intro:

• Comment: "this is four author guide that gives no credit to the work of everybody who contributed to DIME and DIME Analytics. I am worried about this. The background should be DIME and why we established DIME Analytics and what DIME Analytics produced as a result of working on DIME projects... It will have to explain what DIME does (either without copying and pasting or by using quotes and referring to the original documents). You need to include stats on the size of our data efforts, the size of our FC and RA pools, and how this motivated the establishment of DIME analytics and how DIME analytics capitalized on the knowledge generated in the process of doing research and field work. "

• revise the DIME overview paragraph to reflect the above: cite the annual report, make sure that numbers mentioned in this paragraph align with what's there, and that the text is not an exact copy-paste. also the IDEA handbook chapter might be useful to cite. Link to the text is here, the chapter is forthcoming but citeable: https://worldbankgroup-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/g/personal/mjones5_worldbank_org/EWtukZMQT9JNhS9ykWniNIoB5GN1kEt84IqNQJ3_m70gkA?e=dG5FZr.

• add more to the paragraph describing DIME Analytics. the IDEA handbook chapter is a possible source for that. Arianna's comment "The intro should also give an overview of the transformation in expectations from the development economics profession and how this created a different institutional framework for us to work in and contribute to. Separating what was done by others e.g. registries, and what our contribution has been, e.g. proper protocols for reproducibility, is very important. None of our contribution comes out."

• still need to address Arianna's comment: "The introduction should have a clear motivation of why data and not only research design is important for generating credible evidence. Here you need to make reference to actual research on the perils of poor data on research conclusions. "

• the section on good code seems a little out of place with the flow of the rest of the introduction. i wonder if it still belongs here? i could also see it perhaps moving to chapter 2. but i don't feel strongly about that.

[mariaruth]

Nice! just a few more comments in line, mostly minor

[mariaruth]

widely accepted? increasingly perhaps, with pressure from journals ...

[bbdaniels]

maybe this is not clear, it's meant to say that "everyone agrees analysis work should be coded" in contrast to, say, data work. does that make sense?

[mariaruth]

ah, that does make sense. it wasn't clear.

[bbdaniels]

752fd32