Open Science and the Role of Cardiology Journals in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

In July 2020, Brazil has the world's second highest Covid-19 death toll. The COVID-19 pandemic is spreading fast in America. Since the first case of COVID-19 was confirmed, it took 114 days in Brazil (February 26-June 19) and 98 days in the USA (January 21-April 29) for the number of cases to reach more than 1,000,000. Parallel to the rapid growth of COVID-19 cases, there has been a progression in the number of scientific publications. Until June 2020, more than 25,800 papers about COVID-19 were published in PubMed (17,800 open access-69%). This volume of scientific publications is unprecedent. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), for example, received more than 11,000 submissions from January 1 to June 1, 2020, compared with approximately 4,000 submissions during the same period in 2019. 1 The International Journal of Cardiovascular Sciences is facing a similar situation with more than doubled manuscripts submitted. Our aim is to discuss the importance of Open Science during the COVID-19 pandemic and the role of cardiology journals in this special moment.

Iniciativas Brasileiras Lideram com Forte Cooperação Científica para Enfrentar Questões da COVID-19: O Caso da Coalizão COVID-19 Brasil

“…Scientific cooperation increased during the pandemic bringing the ability to pool resources and expertise from across the globe. 1 Cooperative science can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the virus, its transmission, and the disease it causes. With COVID-19, researchers worldwide have collaborated to share data, collaborate on studies, and develop new therapies and vaccines.…”

Trustworthy or not? Research data on COVID-19 in data repositories

“…Following the “Transparency and Openness Promotion” initiative of the Center for Open Science, less than 5% of the already evaluated and registered journals mention peer-reviewing of deposited datasets. An editorial of the International Journal of Cardiovascular Sciences states that “most of the time, reviewers do not examine the raw data of the studies they review,” adding that “one of the multiple benefits of Open Science is that research data can be checked by anyone who accesses the data repository, thereby reducing the likelihood of scientific misconduct” ( Mesquita, 2020 ). In other words, academic journals, at least, should ask for (if not require) the deposit of datasets.…”