Methodological review reveals poor transparency in legal data coding across highly cited health policy studies, highlighting the need for rigorous legal research standards.
Key Points
To evaluate the transparency and replicability of legal research, coding, and quality control methods used in empirical health policy research.
Examined 100 highly cited health policy impact studies published between 2009 and 2019 along with their cited sources of legal data (N=100).
Two independent researchers coded and evaluated the descriptions of legal research, coding protocols, and quality control procedures, resolving discrepancies through author review.
Classified publications into three distinct categories: Transparent, Partly Transparent, or Not Transparent.
Fifty-eight out of 100 evaluated papers were classified as Not Transparent, and 16 papers were rated as Partly Transparent.
Eleven studies provided no source information for either legal research or coding, and six studies provided no source information for both.
Forty percent of studies relied on secondary websites that were not primary sources of law, were not designed for scientific data generation, and lacked transparent research methodologies.