Challenges of scientific publications in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic context
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29193/RMU.36.3.9Keywords:
CORONAVIRUS, SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS, INFORMATION DISSEMINATIONAbstract
The COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has resulted in unexpected changes in the way in which scientific knowledge is produced and published, although recent events sparked the debate on the quality of the information that is being disseminated. Within the context of the pandemic, the scientific community has responded by exponentially increasing research and making findings rapidly known. Despite this being a worthy action towards making progress in the knowledge about the COVID-19, it also entails certain risks.
This opinion article addresses several topics:
1) free access with the purpose of sharing relevant scientific literature in an open and fast mode;
2) the impact of the most well-known preprint information repositories such as medRxiv, aRxiv, bioRxiv y ChemRxiv;
3) the use of artificial intelligence applied to data analysis, for example COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19) or SciSight;
4) the strategies to maintain scientific rigour, be it through an open guardianship by the scientific community or by means of the Outbreak Science Rapid PREreview of the Wellcome Trust or the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Research Compendium (NCRC);
5) Last, it addresses the dilemmas of peer review that seeks to improve the process's transparency. Thus, several authors encourage open referral to be the norm, what requires the original text to be published along with its review, with or without the inclusion of the reviewers' names.
It may be appreciated that not all that is published observes the required quality standards and that speed
undermines good science. We must consider what is published in preprint as preliminary data, and it would be advisable to hold a certain degree of skepticism even in the case of articles from audited journals. The systematic review of scientific research is of the essence, be it the traditional one or aided by the new tools that have been developed in this pandemic. The health policies and standards of care must be based on solid knowledge, obtained in a transparent way, so that even in times of uncertainty, all the actors are positive that the suggested course of action is the best one in the light of the information available at the time.
References
(2) Munafo M. What you need to know about how coronavirus is changing science. The Conversation 2020. Disponible en: https://theconversation.com/what-you-need-to-know- about-how-coronavirus-is-changing-science-137641 [Consulta: 4 de junio de 2020].
(3) Armstrong S. Research on covid-19 is suffering "imperfect incentives at every stage". BMJ 2020; 369:m2045. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2045
(4) Mehra MR, Desai SS, Ruschitzka F, Patel AN. Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. Lancet 2020; S0140-6736(20):31180-6. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6
(5) Davey M. Questions raised over hydroxychloroquine study which caused WHO to halt trials for Covid-19. The Guardian 2020. Disponible en: https://www.theguardian.com /science/2020/may/28/questions-raised-over-hydroxychloroquine-study-which-caused-who-to-halt-trials-for-covid-19 [Consulta: 4 de junio de 2020].
(6) Davey M, Kirchgaessner S, Boseley S. Surgisphere: governments and WHO changed Covid-19 policy based on suspect data from tiny US company. The Guardian 2020. Disponible en: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organizationhydroxychloroquine [Consulta: 11 de junio de 2020].
(7) Mehra MR, Desai SS, Kuy S, Henry TD, Patel AN. Cardiovascular disease, drug therapy, and mortality in Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020; 382(25):e102. doi: 10.105 6/NEJMoa2007621
(8) The Lancet Editors. Expression of concern: hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. Lancet 2020;395(10240):e102. Disponible en: https://marlinprod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S0140673620312903.pdf [Consulta: 4 de junio de 2020].
(9) Rubin EJ. Expression of concern: Mehra MR et al. Cardiovascular disease, drug therapy, and mortality in Covid-19. N Engl J Med. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007621. N Engl J Med 2020; 382(25):2464. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe2020822
(10) Mehra MR, Desai SS, Kuy S, Henry TD, Patel AN. Retraction: Cardiovascular disease, drug therapy, and mortality in Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007621 [retraction of: N Engl J Med. 2020 Jun 18;382(25):e102]. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(26):2582. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2021225
(11) Mehra MR, Desai SS, Ruschitzka F, Patel AN. Retracted: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. Lancet 2020; S0140-6736(20):31180-6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6
(12) Carr D. Sharing research data and findings relevant to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. 31 jan. 2020. Disponible en: https://wellcome.ac.uk/coronavirus-covid-19/open-data [Consulta: 7 de junio de 2020].
(13) Kiley R. Open access: how COVID-19 will change the way research findings are shared. 21 may. 2020. Disponible en: https://wellcome.ac.uk/news/open-access-how-covid-19-will-change-way-research-findings-are-shared. [Consulta: 4 de junio de 2020].
(14) Brainard J. Scientists are drowning in COVID-19 papers. Can new tools keep them afloat? Science May 13 2020. doi:10.1126/science.abc7839
(15) Callaway E. Will the pandemic permanently alter scientific publishing? Nature 2020; 582(7811):167-8. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-01520-4
(16) Kwon D. How preprint servers are blocking bad coronavirus research. Nature 2020; 581(7807):130-1. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-01394-6
(17) BioRvxiv. Disponible en: https://www.biorxiv.org [Consulta: 10 de junio de 2020].
(18) MedXriv. Disponible en: https://www.medrxiv.org [Consulta: 10 de junio de 2020].
(19) Wigginton NS, Cunningham RM, Katz RH, Lidstrom ME, Moler KA, Wirtz D, et al. Moving academic research forward during COVID-19. Science 2020; 368(6496):1190-2. doi: 10.1126/science.abc5599
(20) Torres-Salinas D, Robinson-Garcia N, Castillo-Valdivieso P. Open access and altmetrics in the pandemic age: forescast analysis on COVID-19 literature. BioRxiv 2020.04.23.057307. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.23.057307
(21) Parkin M. COVID-19 preprint projections. Disponible en: https://parkinm.gitlab.io/europe-pmc-reports/covid_preprint_projections [Consulta: 11 de junio de 2020].
(22) SciSight. Disponible en: https://scisight.apps.allenai.org [Consulta: 11 de junio de 2020].
(23) Thomasy H. In the race to crack Covid-19, scientists bypass peer review. Undark 2020. Disponible en: https://undark.org/2020/04/01/scientific-publishing-covid-19/ [Consulta: 6 de junio de 2020].
(24) Review Commons. Disponible en: https://www.reviewcommons.org [Consulta: 11 de junio de 2020].
(25) Lakens D. Pandemic researchers: recruit your own best critics. Nature 2020; 581(7807):121. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-01392-8
(26) Chambers C. What's next for registered reports? Nature 2019; 573(7773):187-9. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02674-6.
(27) Singh Chawla D. Opinion: it's time to lift the veil on peer review Undark 2019. Disponible en: https://undark.org/2019/06/20/lifting-the-veil-on-peer-review/ [Consulta: 5 de junio de 2020].
(28) Responsible journals. Disponible en: https://www.responsiblejournals.org [Consulta: 11 de junio de 2020].