How will science change after SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19)? A call for Open Science
Scientific publishing takes time. In contrast with the traditional press, scientific periodicals have a slow review process. This lag is due to the ‘peer-review’ process, a validation mechanism that can sometimes take years. However, with the immediacy of the online world, society demands faster and better access to information, and scientists have accelerated the call for a revised process (Gewin, 2016).
One tool that has found considerable success in many fields are preprints. These consist of Open Access (free-to-read) publications that have not yet been peer-reviewed. These articles will eventually undergo the same revision process, but preprint outlets allow for quick dissemination of results (Johansson et al., 2018). Preprints have gained momentum over the years despite the concerns over quality outcomes that some attach to Open Access articles.
How did the current crisis affect the functioning of scientific research?
The current COVID-19 crisis has imposed immediacy and openness on scientists. Making science progress as quickly as possible has led researchers worldwide to adopt an unprecedented sharing policy. In the last weeks, researchers have identified and shared hundreds of viral genome sequences and initiated more than 200 clinical trials. Many of them are using data and findings that are only a few days (sometimes hours) old, and their majority traces back to the first Chinese sequencing. But most importantly, a significant portion of traditional outlets have made their publications openly available for the community.
The coronavirus has ignited the scientific community in ways no other pressing question had ever done before. The review process to separate the wheat from the chaff is as novel as it gets. Making use of crowdfunding as a community tool, a platform for online-preprint reviews has just been launched. And not only for life scientists. Other disciplines are involved too. The White House and the NIH have challenged computer scientists to develop automatic text analysis methods that help discovery from full-text corpora.
What long-term effects?
The pandemic has come to show that a different organization of science is not only possible, but socially desirable. The advantages of openness and velocity seem evident for life scientists working towards a vaccine or an antiviral. And for policymakers too. Open Access to scientific work has been possible because we already had the infrastructure to support it efficiently. It has been on the political agenda for quite some time, and early-career researchers have taken the lead in their disciplines (Farnham et al., 2017). Many funding agencies are requesting that research is made openly available, while in some countries like Switzerland, universities are even renegotiating (not without difficulty) their deals with publishers so that science is made publicly available.
One key lesson from the crisis is that concealment impedes the advancement of science, and we need a way of sharing data as efficiently as possible. The life sciences would undoubtedly benefit the most from, not just access to results, but also access to raw data in a timely, structured and interoperable manner. Despite the skepticism (e.g., Andreoli-Versbach, 2014; Longo, 2016), the current crisis could be a catalyst for the adoption of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) Data Practices (EU Commission, 2018).
Reshaping the evaluation of science?
The research community is proving to have reliable networks in place, a well-oiled machine that can forfeit the redundancies in the system and cooperate to make progress. It remains to be seen how the crisis will shape the future of academics. For fields outside the life sciences the lockdown will undoubtedly slow down productivity, if not completely stop any progress. This will leave a gap in the CV of many whose performance is measured on quantity.
While it may seem a short-term problem, science is largely funded by grants, and even more so for younger scholars (Stephan, 2010). The effects of the confinement period will hinder the prospects of contract or grant renewals for many. Even for those in duty, the focus is not on publishing but instead advancing as quickly as possible. Evaluation criteria will have to adapt to a new scenario, or scientists will be at a competitive disadvantage. The efforts, even from home, to contribute to the discussion, to crowdfunded peer review or dissemination are invaluable to make science transcend. It is perhaps also time to rethink the organisation of science.
—
This note is adapted from the report “COVID-19: Insights from Innovation Economists” prepared by a collective of scholars primarily affiliated to the College of Management of Technology at Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland. The full report is available on SSRN.
