“Since the start of the pandemic, a substantial amount of literature related to COVID-19 is already available as open access and more publishers are adopting open access policies to disseminate authentic and trustworthy scientific information. This worldwide barrier-free visibility has helped academics with more citations for their work. This demonstrably also leads to increase in newer advances in COVID-19 related research.
In this article, we will provide an overview on why researchers should make their COVID-19 research papers open access and also discuss the implications of this paradigm shift on academic research….”
“Just recently, some interesting proposals for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences were suggested, and a transparent review-process, among others, was one suggestion to overcome outdated publishing processes . Since the launch of “Innovative Surgical Sciences” in 2016, a transparent double-blind peer review process and publication of the reviews together with the article have been a major and among comparable surgical journals still unique feature of the journal. Additionally, the discussion on transparency should address the question of publishing preprints that are peer-reviewed by the scientific community in order to improve the manuscript as well as research activities. In the Covid-19 pandemic, for example, preprints have been essential for rapid dissemination of new findings. However, transparency in the review process is just one issue of relevance. Other factors of future publication refer to the significance of impact factors to assess scientific achievements and the question of negative results, which are often not published, but may be of importance for future research activities . It becomes more and more evident, that perhaps downloads and other manuscript-oriented altmetrics are of greater interest than just impact factors. And even funding agencies like EMBO (European Molecular Biology Organization) value personal statements and motivation far more than publication history as they stated in a Lindau Nobel laureate discussion . One other, and probably even more relevant issue refers to the participation in open research and Open Access. Up till now, research and publication are primarily US-, European- and Asian-centric. There are concerns that low and middle income countries despite the EIFL-initiative (Electronic Information for Libraries; https://www.eifl.net/) may be lost on the way to the future of publications simply because they cannot afford it. This relates in particular to publishing in a Gold Open Access/Article Processing Charges model. Therefore, there is a need to define opportunities for participation in order to make every participant visible , . It can well be assumed that the scientific community will agree that Open Access is undoubtedly associated with full participation of everyone. Keeping this in mind we also have to acknowledge that Open Access for all cannot be established without financial efforts. At the end, “someone must pay for the costs of publishing all this ever-increasing research” . The European Union (https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/) advocates Open Access research and a rapid and transparent publishing process powered by the F1000research-initiative (https://f1000research.com/). Another important achievement is the PlanS or cOAlitionS concept (https://www.coalition-s.org/) which was, at least in 2019, almost unknown among the 50 Editorial Board members of the British Journal of Surgery . Besides the fact that this is just one example for the old world of publication, PlanS poses in particular for surgery a major problem: only studies that are funded by public grants will have a chance for Gold Open Access publication, and the costs are covered by the grants. The same holds true for studies funded by the European Union, although the European Research Council just recently withdrew from PlanS (https://erc.europa.eu/news/erc-scientific-council-calls-open-access-plans-respect-researchers-needs). Grants from the European Union are still to be published Open Access, and the Article Processing Charges are eligible costs within the grants. Many surgical research papers from all over the world, however, cover clinical studies that are most often not funded at all. These papers would ne
“Researchers who receive federal help consistently fail to report their results to the public. The government should hold them accountable….
Researchers using federal funds to conduct cancer trials — experiments involving drugs or medical devices that rely on volunteer subjects — were sometimes taking more than a year to report their results to the N.I.H., as required. “If you don’t report, the law says you shouldn’t get any funding,” he said, citing an investigation I had published in Stat with my colleague Talia Bronshtein. “Doc, I’m going to find out if it’s true, and if it’s true, I’m going to cut funding. That’s a promise.”
It was true then. It’s true now. More than 150 trials completed since 2017 by the N.I.H’s National Cancer Institute, which leads the $1.8 billion Moonshot effort, should have reported results by now. About two-thirds reported after their deadlines or not at all, according to a University of Oxford website that tracks clinical trials regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health. Some trial results are nearly two years overdue. Over all, government-sponsored scientists have complied less than half the time for trial results due since 2018. (A spokeswoman for the N.I.H. said, “We are willing to do all measures to ensure compliance with ClinicalTrials.gov results reporting.”)…
In 2016, Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, announced that the agency would begin penalizing researchers for failing to comply with its reporting requirements. “We are serious about this,” he said at the time. Yet in the years since, neither the F.D.A. nor N.I.H. has enforced the law. …”
“The potential value of rapid publication should be weighed against the potential harm of inadequate validation of the final output. There is a danger that lowering the threshold of publication oversight sets a precedent that cannot be easily reversed, potentially eroding standards and public trust in medical science2.
We have joined in a multi-party consortium among three eminent professional organizations for medical communication professionals – AMWA, EMWA, and ISMPP – to advocate for the adoption of standards by all stakeholders to better ensure the integrity of published scientific and medical information. Thus, the following Joint Position Statement has been developed to provide practical and implementable suggestions to uphold data integrity and quality, and the transparency of medical publications….”
Abstract: Medical and scientific journals spread developing knowledge by facilitating communication between physicians and scientists. Authors, readers, and the public rightfully expect rapid publication of rigorously reviewed high-quality papers. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of rapid dissemination and has put unprecedented demands on journals. There is genuine urgency to complete medical research and place the findings expeditiously into the public domain after expert peer review so that new findings can be used to improve patient care as soon as possible. The process of peer review is often a slow process, but is essential to ensure that changes in patient care are informed by careful and definitive research. Thus, journal editors must balance the potentially competing goals of immediacy and quality control.
Abstract: The world continues to face a life-threatening viral pandemic. The virus underlying the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused over 98 million confirmed cases and 2.2 million deaths since January 2020. Although the most recent respiratory viral pandemic swept the globe only a decade ago, the way science operates and responds to current events has experienced a cultural shift in the interim. The scientific community has responded rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic, releasing over 125,000 COVID-19–related scientific articles within 10 months of the first confirmed case, of which more than 30,000 were hosted by preprint servers. We focused our analysis on bioRxiv and medRxiv, 2 growing preprint servers for biomedical research, investigating the attributes of COVID-19 preprints, their access and usage rates, as well as characteristics of their propagation on online platforms. Our data provide evidence for increased scientific and public engagement with preprints related to COVID-19 (COVID-19 preprints are accessed more, cited more, and shared more on various online platforms than non-COVID-19 preprints), as well as changes in the use of preprints by journalists and policymakers. We also find evidence for changes in preprinting and publishing behaviour: COVID-19 preprints are shorter and reviewed faster. Our results highlight the unprecedented role of preprints and preprint servers in the dissemination of COVID-19 science and the impact of the pandemic on the scientific communication landscape.
“Europe PMC is a searchable database that allows access to life sciences publications worldwide including preprints and micropublications. Europe PMC offers cutting-edge tools to improve the discovery of articles around a topic of interest and provides links to the data behind the articles. In a commitment to open science, Europe PMC flags articles that are free to read and even better, free to re-use. Additionally, it offers powerful APIs and easy documentation for programmatic access to the knowledgebase in Europe PMC.
Europe PMC is used by both experienced and early career researchers, policy makers, biocurators and innovators seeking to enhance scholarly publishing and more. What could be better than letting Europe PMC users talk about their experiences? Watch the video below to see how Europe PMC helps different users in the life sciences community to do their everyday jobs….”
“Europe PMC (https://europepmc.org/?) is an open science platform that enables access to a worldwide collection of life science publications. Watch this video and see how Europe PMC helps the scientific community to complete their everyday tasks. Read more on the blog post: https://bit.ly/2QnZqNu?. …”
“A global, comprehensive and open access listing of approved anticancer drugs does not currently exist. Partial information is available from multiple sources, including regulatory authorities, national formularies and scientific agencies. Many such data sources include drugs used in oncology for supportive care, diagnostic or other non-antineoplastic uses. We describe a methodology to combine and cleanse relevant data from multiple sources to produce an open access database of drugs licensed specifically for therapeutic antineoplastic purposes. The resulting list is provided as an open access database, (http://www.redo-project.org/cancer-drugs-db/), so that it may be used by researchers as input for further research projects, for example literature-based text mining for drug repurposing.”