Why (and how) COVID-19 could move us closer to the "health information for all" goal
Capocasa, M.; Destro Bisol, G.; Anagnostou, P.
Show 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.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study 93%
- The Rise of Open Data Practices Among Bioscientists at the University of Edinburgh 93%
- Reliability of citations of medRxiv preprints in articles published on COVID-19 in the world leading medical journals 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Systematic Examination of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) Usage Guidelines for Scholarly Publishing in Medical Journals 91%
- Checklists to Detect Potential Predatory Biomedical Journals: A Systematic Review 91%
- Evidence of Unreliable Data and Poor Data Provenance in Clinical Prediction Model Research and Clinical Practice 88%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Growth rate and acceleration analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic reveals the effect of public health measures in real time 89%
- Semantic and geographical analysis of Covid-19 trials reveals a fragmented clinical research landscape likely to impair informativeness. 89%
- Effects of environmental factors on severity and mortality of COVID-19 86%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.