Why is The BMJ still so successful after 180 years? Dr Kamran Abbasi explains in his own words.

Thank you, Professor Tang. I'm delighted to be joining you and talking to readers and authors in China. I have been involved with The BMJ for the last 25 years. The BMJ started as a campaigning journal for the poor and social issues, and it became a very clinical journal. Our focus is on supporting clinicians and public health people to deliver better care. We think about a health professional making a decision that will affect a patient. That focus has been refined over the years. In the last 25 years, The BMJ has been at the forefront of the evidence-based medicine movement, championing openness and transparency in research, and patient involvement. We have patient editors and patient reviewers. We also have a strong team of journalists, which sets us apart from other journals. Our identity is about questioning authority and supporting patients and clinicians.

Our values are evidence-based, open and transparent, patient-centered, and courageous. Every piece of content should live those values. We publish traditional research, clinical education, scholarly analysis, editorials, and journalism. For Chinese readers, I would highlight our research papers, which are strong in methodology and relevant to clinical practice and policy making. Also, our scholarly pieces, like the 10 papers on China's response to COVID, take a global view and are very instructive.

China has a great deal to contribute. For research papers, we focus on the research question first – is it relevant, important, original, and likely to impact patient care or policy? Then we check if the methodology is appropriate. We are more interested in the questions than the answers. We have a sophisticated peer review process. I advise ensuring statisticians are involved from the beginning, being open about funding and contributions, and making sure authors control the data and the decision to publish. We are an international journal, so we look for papers that influence readers and policymakers worldwide.

I'm not sure the UK is ahead; we have our own problems. Clinical research doesn't get the same funding as basic science in any country. The UK has national structures to support it, but we face the same battle. I think China has immense potential to become a leading country in clinical research because of its large population and dedicated people. To advance, China needs a culture that values clinical research, along with dedicated funding and infrastructure. Clinical research is vital because it tests whether early findings actually work in practice.

Yes, the UK has a tradition of investing in clinical research, with the first randomized controlled trial published in The BMJ. But now it's an international enterprise. During COVID, the UK had very good trials. The thinking and practice originated in the UK, but we can't claim to do it better anymore.

The BMJ is both traditional and fast-growing. We continue to support traditional methodologies like randomized trials and systematic reviews, but we are also open to new methodologies like machine learning, AI, and real-world data. We want to lead in setting standards for these new approaches. I believe we are modern, dynamic, and radical in embracing these methods because they speak directly to decision-makers and populations.

Thank you for that question. We published 10 papers about China's response to COVID and what the world can learn. The main lesson is the ongoing importance of traditional public health – old-school measures. China implemented those far better than many other places, including the UK. The facts are there in the metrics. Another strong lesson is about inequalities and the need to protect vulnerable populations. Those are the two strongest themes. We are also looking at the UK's response to draw lessons. Some lessons could have been learned much earlier.

I didn't know that! I'm very happy to hear it. We want to do more for and with China because we want to create a healthier world. We want to publish articles that improve policy-making in China and support research capacity. The world has a lot to learn from China.

These new methodologies have immense potential for surveillance, early warning, and understanding health trends. But we must engage carefully because of risks around data handling, confidentiality, and misuse of information. Medical journals have a role in promoting research ethics and integrity. We are open to these new methods, but we will scrutinize how researchers handle data, permissions, and confidentiality. In many countries, people are very sensitive about their data. The emerging evidence is that fully automated systems are not the answer; human involvement is needed to make sense of the information and consider harms.

What will not change is our dedication to our values: evidence-based, patient-centered, open and transparent, and courageous. We will continue striving for a healthier world and planet. My focus is on prioritizing health and well-being outcomes globally. The health sector is only responsible for a small part of health; we need to consider how education, housing, transport, and inequalities interact with health. We will be open-minded to new methods and evidence from other sectors. We will also build on our international efforts to support health professionals and policymakers worldwide. My editorship will argue for making health and well-being a priority in all areas of society.

Thank you, Professor Tang. Let me say one more thing: I have been fortunate to work with two great editors, Richard Smith and Fiona Godlee. They established the BMJ as a leading voice. I am standing on the shoulders of giants. We have a great opportunity and responsibility to provide trustworthy evidence and support clinical practice, and to push forward agendas for a healthier world.