Back

Adherence to data-sharing policies - a comparison of the BMJ with other major medical journals

Avenell, A.; Bishop, D.

2026-05-21 medical ethics
10.64898/2026.05.15.26353284 medRxiv
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.

50% of probability mass above

"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.