Why (and how) COVID-19 could move us closer to the “health information for all” goal

  1. Marco Capocasa
  2. Paolo Anagnostou
  3. Giovanni Destro Bisol

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

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

  1. ScreenIT

    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 Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.23.20160481v1 on medRxiv