Has open data arrived at the British Medical Journal (BMJ)? An observational study

• Published in: BMJ open 2016-10, Vol.6 (10), p.e011784-e011784
• Main Authors: Rowhani-Farid, Anisa, Barnett, Adrian G
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Access to Information; Authorship; Biomedical Research - trends; Clinical trials; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cooperative Behavior; Data collection; Datasets; Humans; Information Dissemination - methods; Information sharing; Information Storage and Retrieval - trends; Medical equipment; Medical Publishing and Peer Review; Medical research; Open data; Organizational Policy; Periodicals as Topic - trends; Public Policy; Research Design; Research Personnel; Researchers; Servers; Studies; Systematic review; United Kingdom
• ISSN: 2044-6055; 2044-6055
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011784

ObjectiveTo quantify data sharing trends and data sharing policy compliance at the British Medical Journal (BMJ) by analysing the rate of data sharing practices, and investigate attitudes and examine barriers towards data sharing.DesignObservational study.SettingThe BMJ research archive.Participants160 randomly sampled BMJ research articles from 2009 to 2015, excluding meta-analysis and systematic reviews.Main outcome measuresPercentages of research articles that indicated the availability of their raw data sets in their data sharing statements, and those that easily made their data sets available on request.Results3 articles contained the data in the article. 50 out of 157 (32%) remaining articles indicated the availability of their data sets. 12 used publicly available data and the remaining 38 were sent email requests to access their data sets. Only 1 publicly available data set could be accessed and only 6 out of 38 shared their data via email. So only 7/157 research articles shared their data sets, 4.5% (95% CI 1.8% to 9%). For 21 clinical trials bound by the BMJ data sharing policy, the per cent shared was 24% (8% to 47%).ConclusionsDespite the BMJ's strong data sharing policy, sharing rates are low. Possible explanations for low data sharing rates could be: the wording of the BMJ data sharing policy, which leaves room for individual interpretation and possible loopholes; that our email requests ended up in researchers spam folders; and that researchers are not rewarded for sharing their data. It might be time for a more effective data sharing policy and better incentives for health and medical researchers to share their data.