Adherence to data-sharing policies - a comparison of the BMJ with other major medical journals
Avenell, A.; Bishop, D.
Show abstract
Background: In 2024, the BMJ updated its data-sharing policy for clinical trials, requiring deidentified individual patient data (IPD) to be openly deposited prior to publication. Our objective was to discover if data-sharing increased after introduction of the new policy. Method: All data-sharing statements were downloaded from BMJ trials published in 2023 (submitted pre-updated policy) and 2025 (submitted post-updated policy). Data for 2025 were gathered for trials in five comparison medical journals. Data-sharing statements were coded to specify whether IPD were immediately available, and if not, the reason why. Where a statement gave a link to a repository, we checked whether data were available. Results: Openly available IPD for BMJ trials increased from 0/32 prior to the new policy to 19/33 (58%) after the updated policy; seven articles gave repository links that did not yield any data. In the five comparison journals, rates of open IPD varied from 0% to 5.6%. Conclusions: There was a substantial increase in open sharing of IPD after introduction of the new policy compared to a prior period. Open sharing of IPD is possible, but it is unpopular with authors and is unlikely to be achieved without firm editorial enforcement
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The Proportion of Randomized Controlled Trials That Inform Clinical Practice: A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 92%
- An Experimental Test of the Effects of Redacting Grant Applicant Identifiers on Peer Review Outcomes 91%
- Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Diversity and inclusion: A hidden additional benefit of Open Data 93%
- Ethical review of clinical research with generative AI: Evaluating ChatGPT’s accuracy and reproducibility 91%
- Inferring Gender from First Names: Comparing the Accuracy of Genderize, Gender API, and the gender R Package on Authors of Diverse Nationality 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 94%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 94%
- Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open-access publishing each year 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Transparency in the secondary use of health data: Assessing the status quo of guidance and best practices 95%
- Discrepancy review: A feasibility study of a novel peer review intervention to reduce undisclosed discrepancies between registrations and publications 95%
- Communicating personalised risks from COVID-19: guidelines from an empirical study 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 93%
- COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study 93%
- Stakeholders’ views on an institutional dashboard with metrics for responsible research 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.