I have submitted the following rapid response to the BMJ Editorial: The potential and limits of scrutiny in medical research:
Thank you editor for welcoming ideas on this important matter. As you say the goal is to act in the interests of the public, to devise more robust processes and new solutions that allow evidence and data to rebuild confidence [1].
The BMJ should reaffirm its support for the introduction of Sunshine legislation in the UK. Without such legislation trust in evidence will continue to be compromised. Likewise all the Royal Colleges should make public statements to support the introduction of such legislation, which was one of the recommendations of the Cumberlege Review: First Do No harm [2] which was published more than 5 years ago.
I agree that the BMJ is to be commended for adding a ‘layer of post-publication scrutiny’ through its open rapid response system. As somebody who has submitted responses over the years, I have sometimes found that, however carefully I write about the subject of transparency, my submission is not published by the BMJ. This has particularly been in relation to the provision of continuing medical education [CME] with the direct involvement of industry paid professionals. Perhaps it is the case that these submissions are considered “legally problematic”? It seems to me that there is an impasse here that only legislation might be able to address.
[1] The potential and limits of scrutiny in medical research, Kamran Abbasi, 14 Nov 2025, BMJ 2025;391:r2411
[2] Cumberlege Review: First Do No harm, July 2022, https://www.immdsreview.org.uk/downloads/IMMDSReview_Web.pdf