[Excerpts taken from the article “Data sharing practices in randomized trials of addiction interventions” by Matt Vassar, Sam Jellison, Hannah Wendelbo, and Cole Wayant, published in the journal Addictive Behaviors]

“We conducted a 6 year cross-sectional investigation of the rates and methods of data sharing in 15 high-impact addiction journals that publish clinical trials.”

“In the included journals, zero (0/394, 0.0%) RCTs shared their data publicly. The large majority (315/394, 79.9%) of included trials received funding from public sources. Eight journals had data sharing policies…”

“Our finding has significant implications for the addiction research community. These implications are broad, ranging from possibly slowed scientific advancement to noncompliance with obligations to the public whose tax dollars funded a large majority of the included RCTs.”

“To improve the rates of data sharing, we recommend studying incentive systems, while simultaneously working to cultivate a data sharing system that emphasizes scientific, rather than author, accuracy.”

To read the article, click here (NOTE: Article is behind a paywall.)