Open Science during the COVID pandemic: Temporary boost or durable contribution to a more open world?

Open science, in particular the open access publishing of research and the widespread sharing of data, have been depicted as key to combatting the COVID-19 pandemic – not least in the unprecedented speed with which vaccines were developed. However, there is little empirical evidence to back those assertions.  

With a new study titled “Open Science – Crucial for effective COVID research?” I sought to explore whether, and to what extent, open science practices influenced the speed of COVID research. I ran a literature review, surveyed more than 200 COVID researchers, and held qualitative interviews with six scientists. Here are some of the results. 

First, the study found that opening access to scientific publications was considered by the scientific community to be very important in accelerating COVID-19 research.  

Most survey respondents (82% percent) and interviewees said they were happy with the level of access to literature they had. Nonetheless, some limitations in either accessing literature or publishing it in open access were noted, which suggests there are still inequities in the global dissemination of knowledge. 

Second, there were mixed views on preprints, the broad state of peer review, and the juxtaposition of speed and quality in scientific research during the pandemic. They reflect a scientific community wrestling with rapid changes. However, all interviewees acknowledged the importance of scientific research during the pandemic that was reliable and properly vetted.  

Third, most survey respondents and interviewees agreed that data sharing was crucial for COVID-related research, but almost all pointed to room for improvement in terms of data accessibility, quality, and the legal frameworks for sharing data across borders.   

Indeed, survey respondents and interviewees saw a need to change the culture of publication, by acknowledging data sharing and expanding the approach to assessing scientific work beyond publication numbers or journal prestige.

And fourth, on the effectiveness of the scientific system in tackling COVID, reactions were mixed. Some interviewees expressed negative opinions on the handling of data and one flagged censorship during the pandemic, while others highlighted successful collaboration and the sharing of data.  

Similarly, concluding thoughts on Open Science and the speed of COVID were wide-ranging, interviewees offering reflections on applying similar efforts to other diseases, speeding up funding decisions, and the likelihood of pre-print services and platforms becoming more popular. 

Overall, the COVID pandemic undeniably acted shed light on the benefits of Open Science. The question remains, did we see a fleeting response to an extraordinary crisis or a harbinger of a new normal in scientific research?  

As I noted in an article (2) before the pandemic, Open Science is not yet the default. In order to achieve it we must address several overarching obstacles, such as resistance from vested interests, geopolitics, data hoarding, and a changing research culture. Any single Open Science initiative will not be a “silver bullet.” We need continuous awareness raising and training among researchers, effective monitoring mechanisms, robust compliance from funders, and the creation of tangible incentives and support systems. 

Progress towards Open Science is often a “two steps forward, one step back” dance. The journey is more akin to a marathon than a sprint. As we navigate this challenging path, we inch closer to a future where Open Science is the modus operandi of scholarship and enriches our collective scientific endeavour and knowledge. 

Further reading 

1. Study Open Science – Crucial for Effective Covid Research? [Final Report – to be deposited on Zenodo]

  2. Not yet the default setting – in 2020 open research remains a work in progress.

  3. Open Science – why aren’t we there yet?

Headline study results

   i.    Access to scientific publications was a very important factor contributing to the speed of COVID research. Although most respondents were  satisfied with the level of open access to COVID publications, some limitations remain. 

 ii.    Open data was also considered important for the speed of COVID-related research but less so than open access to publications. Only a narrow majority was satisfied with the quality of available COVID data, and many pointed out that there was room for improvement in terms of accessibility, quality, and legal frameworks for data sharing across borders. 

iii.    The value of pre-prints, the current state of peer-review, and the role of speed versus quality in scientific research were seen as closely connected to open access sharing and the speed of COVID research and were controversially discussed. The lack of consensus shows a scientific system still in transition towards open science.  

iv.    The actions to open knowledge taken during the pandemic (such as the Joint Statement) have delivered a boost towards achieving open science but should not be considered a silver bullet. In the post COVID era we need to guard against backsliding and continue to make progress by addressing remaining challenges. In the end, implementing open science is a marathon, not a sprint.