Open Science and COVID-19 Randomized Controlled Trials: Examining Open Access, Preprinting, and Data Sharing-Related Practices During the Pandemic
Borghi, J. A.; Payne, C.; Ren, L.; Woodward, A. L.; Wong, C.; Stave, C.
Show abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought substantial attention to the systems used to communicate biomedical research. In particular, the need to rapidly and credibly communicate research findings has led many stakeholders to encourage researchers to adopt open science practices such as posting preprints and sharing data. To examine the degree to which this has led to the adoption of such practices, we examined the "openness" of a sample of 539 published papers describing the results of randomized controlled trials testing interventions to prevent or treat COVID-19. The majority (56%) of the papers in this sample were free to read at the time of our investigation and 23.56% were preceded by preprints. However, there is no guarantee that the papers without an open license will be available without a subscription in the future, and only 49.61% of the preprints we identified were linked to the subsequent peer-reviewed version. Of the 331 papers in our sample with statements identifying if (and how) related datasets were available, only a paucity indicated that data was available in a repository that facilitates rapid verification and reuse. Our results demonstrate that, while progress has been made, there is still a significant mismatch between aspiration and the practice of open science in an important area of the COVID-19 literature. Open MaterialsWe are committed to making the details of our research process as open as possible. The data and code that underlie our analyses are archived and published through the Dryad Data Repository (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.mkkwh7137). Documentation and instructions for manuscript screening and data extraction are available on Protocols.io (https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.x54v9jx7zg3e/v1). Author contributions are outlined in Supplementary Table 1. O_TBL View this table: org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@774764org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@f03612org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@6e16ccorg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@19ac3eborg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1b47f40_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_TBL O_FLOATNOSupplementary Table 1.C_FLOATNO O_TABLECAPTIONAuthor Information and Contributions C_TABLECAPTION C_TBL
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The Rise of Open Data Practices Among Bioscientists at the University of Edinburgh 96%
- Motivations, concerns and selection biases when posting preprints: a survey of bioRxiv authors 96%
- COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 93%
- Fast and frugal decision tree for the rapid critical appraisal of systematic reviews 93%
- Development of a search filter to retrieve reports of interrupted time series studies from MEDLINE and PubMed 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Quantifying new threats to health and biomedical literature integrity from rapidly scaled publications and problematic research 95%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 94%
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- A cross-sectional audit and survey of Open Science and Data Sharing practices at The Montreal Neurological Institute-Hospital 96%
- Taxonomy of interventions at academic institutions to improve research quality 94%
- Inflated citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: the GhoS(t)copus Project 94%
"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.