Cited by 1Research Data Management PracticesAcademic Publishing and Open Accessscientometrics and bibliometrics research

Formalistic data and code availability policy in high-profile medical journals and pervasive policy-practice gaps in published articles: A meta-research study

Li, Wei, Liu, Xuerong, Zhang, Qianyu, Shi, Liping, Zhang, Jing-Xuan, Zhang, Xiaolin, Luan, Jia, Li, Yue +20 more·2026·Accountability in Research

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08989621.2025.2481943

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Still being checked.

Authors
Li, W., Liu, X., Zhang, Q., Shi, L., Zhang, J.-X., Zhang, X., Luan, J., Li, Y., Xu, T., Zhang, R., Han, X., Lei, J., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Lan, H., Chen, X., Wu, Y., Wu, Y., Xia, L., Liao, H., Shen, C., Yu, Y., Xu, X., Deng, C., Liu, P., Feng, Z., Huang, C.-J., & Chen, Z.
Affiliations
  • Army Medical University (CN)
  • Army Medical University
  • Southwest University (CN)
  • Sichuan Normal University (CN)
  • Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CN)
Corresponding author
Chen, Zhiyi
Venue
Accountability in Research
Published
2025-03-25
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
2481943-2481943
ISSN
  • 0898-9621 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-5815
OpenAlex
W4408845484
Cited by
1
References
54
Citations by year
2025: 1
FWCI
1.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Accountability in Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
data availability policy, data sharing, open science, policy-practice gap, medical journals, reproducibility, journal impact factor, research transparency, medical subspecialties
MeSH terms
Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Information Dissemination, Editorial Policies, Journal Impact Factor

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review