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

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: = 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.