Why (and how) COVID-19 could move us closer to the “health information for all” goal
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
In this manuscript, we present an analysis of open access (OA) rates of papers concerning COVID-19 and other important human diseases, whose results helped develop an evidence-based scalable strategy aimed at increasing the full and timely access to medical literature. We show that COVID-19 papers are much more openly available (OA rate of 89.5%) than those concerning the four most recent viral outbreaks (Avian influenza, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, Swine influenza; OA rates (from 26.2% to 51.3%) and the ten non COVID-19 disease categories responsible for the highest number of deaths worldwide (OA rates from 44.0% for “Maternal and neonatal disorders” to 58.9% for “Respiratory infections and tuberculosis”). This evidence confronts us with an inevitable question: how can we bridge the gap between OA rates for COVID-19 and other high-impact human diseases? Based on empirical data and projections, we show that it is possible to increase substantially immediate OA to publicly-funded research and complement more demanding initiatives for access to medical literature in developing countries working on the sharing of post-prints at individual, group and multi stakeholder partnership level. However, to make our plan effective in bringing us closer to the “health information for all” goal a more widespread culture of cooperation is fundamental. We argue that the lesson taught by COVID-19 is a unique opportunity to raise awareness among researchers and stakeholders about the importance of open science for human health and to demonstrate that a real change is now possible.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.23.20160481: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.23.20160481: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-