Formalistic data and code availability policy in high-profile medical journals and pervasive policy-practice gaps in published articles: A meta-research study.
Wei Li, Xuerong Liu, Qianyu Zhang, Liping Shi, Jing-Xuan Zhang, Xiaolin Zhang, Jia Luan, Yue Li, Ting Xu, Rong Zhang, Xiaodi Han, Jingyu Lei, Xueqian Wang, Yaozhi Wang, Hai Lan, Xiaohan Chen, Yi Wu, Yan Wu, Lei Xia, Haiping Liao, Chang Shen, Yang Yu, Xinyu Xu, Chao Deng, Pei Liu, Zhengzhi Feng, Chun-Ji Huang, Zhiyi Chen
{"title":"Formalistic data and code availability policy in high-profile medical journals and pervasive policy-practice gaps in published articles: A meta-research study.","authors":"Wei Li, Xuerong Liu, Qianyu Zhang, Liping Shi, Jing-Xuan Zhang, Xiaolin Zhang, Jia Luan, Yue Li, Ting Xu, Rong Zhang, Xiaodi Han, Jingyu Lei, Xueqian Wang, Yaozhi Wang, Hai Lan, Xiaohan Chen, Yi Wu, Yan Wu, Lei Xia, Haiping Liao, Chang Shen, Yang Yu, Xinyu Xu, Chao Deng, Pei Liu, Zhengzhi Feng, Chun-Ji Huang, Zhiyi Chen","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2481943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Poor data and code (DAC) sharing undermines open science principles. This study evaluates the stringency of DAC availability policies in high-profile medical journals and identifies policy-practice gaps (PPG) in published articles.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>DAC availability policies of 931 Q1 medical journals (Clarivate JCR 2021) were evaluated, with PPGs quantified across 3,191 articles from The BMJ, JAMA, NEJM, and The Lancet.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only 9.1% (85/931) of journals mandated DAC sharing and availability statements, with 70.6% of these lacking mechanisms to verify authenticity, and 61.2% allowing publication despite invalid sharing. Secondary analysis revealed a disproportionate distribution of policies across subspecialties, with 18.6% (11/59) of subspecialties having >20% journals with mandated policies. Journal impact factors exhibited positive correlations with the stringency of availability statement policies (ρ = 0.20, <i>p</i> < 0.001) but not with sharing policies (ρ = 0.01, <i>p</i> = 0.737). Among the 3,191 articles, PPGs were observed in over 90% of cases. Specifically, 33.7% lacked DAC availability statements, 23.3% refused sharing (58.4% of which without justification in public statements), and 13.5% declared public sharing, with 39.0% being unreachable. Finally, only 0.5% achieved full computational reproducibility.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Formalistic policies and prevalent PPGs undermine DAC transparency, necessitating a supportive publication ecosystem that empowers authors to uphold scientific responsibility and integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2481943"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2481943","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Poor data and code (DAC) sharing undermines open science principles. This study evaluates the stringency of DAC availability policies in high-profile medical journals and identifies policy-practice gaps (PPG) in published articles.
Methods: DAC availability policies of 931 Q1 medical journals (Clarivate JCR 2021) were evaluated, with PPGs quantified across 3,191 articles from The BMJ, JAMA, NEJM, and The Lancet.
Results: Only 9.1% (85/931) of journals mandated DAC sharing and availability statements, with 70.6% of these lacking mechanisms to verify authenticity, and 61.2% allowing publication despite invalid sharing. Secondary analysis revealed a disproportionate distribution of policies across subspecialties, with 18.6% (11/59) of subspecialties having >20% journals with mandated policies. Journal impact factors exhibited positive correlations with the stringency of availability statement policies (ρ = 0.20, p < 0.001) but not with sharing policies (ρ = 0.01, p = 0.737). Among the 3,191 articles, PPGs were observed in over 90% of cases. Specifically, 33.7% lacked DAC availability statements, 23.3% refused sharing (58.4% of which without justification in public statements), and 13.5% declared public sharing, with 39.0% being unreachable. Finally, only 0.5% achieved full computational reproducibility.
Conclusions: Formalistic policies and prevalent PPGs undermine DAC transparency, necessitating a supportive publication ecosystem that empowers authors to uphold scientific responsibility and integrity.
期刊介绍：
Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results.
The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science.
All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
