Breaking the rules: understanding non-compliance with policies and guidelinesBMJ 2011; 343 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5283 (Published 13 September 2011) Cite this as: BMJ 2011;343:d5283
Sorry, there is no peer review to display for this article
We are implementing fully open peer review for Analysis articles in The BMJ. This means that accepted Analysis papers submitted from February 2016 onwards usually have their prepublication history posted alongside them on thebmj.com.
This prepublication history comprises all previous versions of the manuscript, the report from the manuscript committee meeting, the reviewers’ comments, and the authors’ responses to all the comments from reviewers and editors.
In rare instances we may determine after careful consideration that we should not make certain portions of the prepublication record publicly available. For example, in cases of stigmatised illnesses we seek to protect the confidentiality of reviewers who have these illnesses. In other instances there may be legal or regulatory considerations that make it inadvisable or impermissible to make available certain parts of the prepublication record.
In all instances in which we have determined that elements of the prepublication record should not be made publicly available, we expect that authors will respect these decisions and also will not share this information.