ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021
Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
81 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Generosity as a Scientific Method: Building Knowledge and Community in a Competitive World.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Implementing is necessary: the gap between discourse and practice in global open science.Brazilian oral research · 2026Review
- Fifty Years of Retracted Medical Publications From 1975 to 2024: A Comprehensive Analysis of Trends, Reasons, and Countries Using the Retraction Watch Database.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- "Walls Around Cells"-Food and Drug Administration's Recent Decoupling Policies Fragment Open Science and Undermine Global Health.Health care science · 2025Article
- Risk of bias and low reproducibility in meta-analytic evidence from fast-tracked publications during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Article
- Advocacy and Open Science in the UK: Case Studies in the Autism Wars.Behavior analysis in practice · 2025Article
- Translational Success and Pharmacoeconomic Lessons of Pandemic-Driven Drug Repurposing.Cureus · 2025Review
- The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- How will we prepare for an uncertain future? The value of open data and code for unborn generations facing climate change.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Open Science Practices in Integrated Assessment Models.Open research Europe · 2025Article
- Why is it important to implement meta-research in universities and institutes with medical research activities?Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Article
- Articles' retraction during the pandemic: COVID-19 is not the pacemaker.Annals of translational medicine · 2024Article
- Do randomised clinical trials on dental caries adopt Open Science practices?BMC oral health · 2024Article
- How the pandemic affected psychological research.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Prerequisite for reproducible science: a call to embrace code sharing.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2024Article
- One Health Ethics and the Ethics of Zoonoses: A Silent Call for Global Action.Veterinary sciences · 2024Review
- The societal impact of Open Science: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the last decade Open Science principles have been successfully advocated for and are being slowly adopted in different research communities. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many publishers and researchers have sped up their adoption of Open Science practices, sometimes embracing them fully and sometimes partially or in a sub-optimal manner. In this article, we express concerns about the violation of some of the Open Science principles and its potential impact on the quality of research output. We provide evidence of the misuses of these principles at different stages of the scientific process. We call for a wider adoption of Open Science practices in the hope that this work will encourage a broader endorsement of Open Science principles and serve as a reminder that science should always be a rigorous process, reliable and transparent, especially in the context of a pandemic where research findings are being translated into practice even more rapidly. We provide all data and scripts at https://osf.io/renxy/ .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.