I have no idea what that is supposed to convey.

I think Dorothy’s rapid response was completely fine but I also think saying what you said about the one journal in the area trying to do the right thing isn’t going to make others anxious to follow suit.

We see the occasional failures. We are not seeing the papers that get rejected for refusing to share data or the ones the editors work with to ensure the data gets shared. Not saying BMJ shouldn’t be called when they lapse but maybe a little grace as they figure this out?

Good to post this but fwiw I know BMJ is taking this requirement pretty seriously internally even if this appears to have been a hiccup in implementation.

I have a rejected grant proposal hanging around to look at this phenomena (no shared data in meta-studies) in publication bias research (as part of collecting lots of data on trial results reporting for a larger thing). Still hoping to do it one day.

This paper was really bad in many ways (methods, interpretation etc.), despite being seemingly being directionally correct in its findings, but this one thing has always REALLY stuck with, and bothered, me.