The mission of The BMJ is to lead the debate on health and to engage, inform, and stimulate all doctors and health care researchers in ways that enable them to make better decisions and improve outcomes for patients.
Underpinning these aims, The BMJ has a set of ethical editorial principles, an ethics advisory committee, and a commitment to transparency. We try to ensure that readers, authors, and editors know as much about the background to each other’s work as possible. We do this through policies such as open peer review, declaring competing interests, and explaining the role of the bodies that fund research.
There are many other policies and principles that help The BMJ to be an ethical publisher, and we have brought all of them together in this single transparency policy. You can reach the policies listed below simply by clicking on the links.
We will add to The BMJ’s transparency policy as often as we need to. Please contact us if you feel there is anything missing.
Please follow the links to find these policies:
Ethics approval of research
The BMJ's ethics committee
Copyright and permission to reuse
Trial registration and data sharing
Authorship and contributorship
Publishing images of patients
Our peer review process
Previous peer review reports
Peer reviewing research done by BMJ editors
Evidence based publishing at The BMJ
Editorial research at The BMJ
Occupational workforce research
Duplicate publication and plagiarism
Corrections and retractions
Role of professional medical writers
Reporting industry-sponsored trials
Competing interests of The BMJ's editorial staff
Competing interests of The BMJ's editorial advisory board
BMJ (publishing group) advertising and sponsorship policy
Articles criticising doctors and others
The BMJ aims to ensure that all articles published in The BMJ report on work that is morally acceptable, and expects authors to follow the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki.
Since January 2000, The BMJ has not asked authors (or their employers) of journal articles to assign us their copyright, instead requiring in most cases an exclusive licence from them. All Research articles published by The BMJ are published by default as open access (irrespective of who funded the research) and reuse is subject to an applicable Creative Commons licence (CC BY-NC). We do also request payment for these research articles being made available on an open access basis. If authors wish any other article to be available for viewing on an open access basis, such publication can be requested and if agreed by The BMJ (including the payment of any required fees) be published on this basis.
A competing interest — often called a conflict of interest — exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients' welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). We believe that, to make the best decision on how to deal with an article, we should know about any competing interests that authors may have, and that if we publish the article readers should know about them too.
There are differing definitions of scientific misconduct. At The BMJ, we deal with these problems on a case by case basis while following guidance produced by the major publication ethics bodies.
Our policy is based on the UK's data protection law and the English common law of confidentiality. UK authors should be aware that the General Medical Council has extensive guidance on patient consent and confidentiality and that our policy is in line with GMC advice.
The BMJ's editors treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents, which means they will not divulge information about a manuscript to anyone without the authors' permission. During the process of manuscript review the following people may also have access to manuscripts:
• Editors and editorial staff at The BMJ, including medical students on placement and occasional overseas visitors - usually doctors or editors from other journals;
• External reviewers, including statisticians and experts in trial methods;
• Members of the journal's editorial committees, comprising the final stage in our peer review process for original research articles;
• The only occasion when details about a manuscript might be passed to a third party without the authors’ permission is if the editor suspects serious research misconduct.
The BMJ sometimes publishes articles that criticise health professionals. Being a professional implies operating to a higher ethical standard than the general population. Thus, when balancing the interest of patients and the profession against those of an individual professional, The BMJ has an obligation to give more weight to the interests of patients and the profession than might be the case if a publication was balancing the interest of a lay individual against those of the general community.
The BMJ has guidelines on articles in which the health professionals are clearly identified and those in which they are not, and some elements are common to both.
All submissions to The BMJ must conform to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Our requirements reflect those of the ICMJE, although we also have specific requirements for different types of article and particularly detailed ones for research articles.
The BMJ follows The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (ICMJE Recommendations 2018) with regards to authorship, contributorship and group authorship.
We have a clear embargo policy with recognised media organisations and journalists. We issue press releases ahead of publication to allow journalists and broadcasters to write a sensible, considered story about the articles that are press released. In return they undertake not to publish their stories before the embargo date. This is a well understood policy, to ours and the press’s mutual benefit, and in general the press observe it.
We do not “tip off” any other people or organisations who might like to know ahead of time what an article says.
The reasons for this are:
• Practical issues: It is hard to define exactly who might like to know in advance about an article in The BMJ – and particularly hard to draw a line of what sort of organisation should fall within the line. The deal with the press is easily defined, well understood, and The BMJ benefits from it as well as the press.
• We can’t be sure that organisations won’t leak information.
• It's a distraction from our job of publishing the best stuff we can.
NB: This policy does not mean that we and our writers won’t contact people who are mentioned in articles to gain a comment that we might include in the article.
If an organisation is contacted directly by a journalist for a comment on a particular paper, while under embargo, we do send them a copy of the paper to enable them to make an informed comment. But we always stress that the material is under embargo and should not be circulated.
Guidelines about informing workforces about the results of research in which they have participated before publication in mass media. Research undertaken with workforces can take place only with their full cooperation. Understandably, they expect to hear from the researchers about the results of the research and its implications for them before publication in the mass media.