[Re: https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/open-access-112-how-important-open-acce... ]
Dear David and all,
Thanks again for your message above, where you asked ChatGPT in relation to my original challenge: “However, to date we have been unable to identify a single example of how access to the full text of a research paper saved a life, or even contributed directly to clinical decision-making.”
I've looked and discounted the first three examples, all of which relate to COVID-19.
#1 https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/open-access-113-how-important-open-acce...
#2 https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/open-access-114-has-open-access-researc...
#2/3 https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/open-access-115-has-open-access-researc...
Here is example #4:
#4: 'Beyond single drugs, there’s a peer-reviewed synthesis arguing (with case documentation) that open science / OA “saves lives” in outbreaks by accelerating methods, data and guidelines—the COVID pandemic is the clearest modern proof-of-concept.'
Reference: Besançon L, Peiffer-Smadja N, Segalas C, et al. Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):117. doi:10.1186/s12874-021-01304-y
COMMENT (NPW): Yet again, this example relates to COVID-19. The authors note: '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'
On reading the text, I noted a mismatch between the title and the content. The title 'Open science saves lives' would suggest that the paper would provide evidence that open science saves lives. But saving lives was no even mentioned in the full text and no such evidence was provided. Indeed, much of the paper pointed to some major problems with preprints and rapid open access publication, as shown by these two extracts:
1. 'The scientific community has responded accordingly, with the publication of over 80,000 preprints and peer-reviewed articles on COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 since announcement of the emergence of a new virus on 31 st December 2019 [1]. Many of these publications have contributed to the development of a body of knowledge that has since informed practice but a considerable number of these studies suffer methodological weaknesses, limiting the interpretability of their findings [2] or leading to false claims with a potentially dramatic impact on public health.'
2. 'While the need for faster scientific dissemination during a pandemic is understandable, the possibility to publish without a rigorous and critical peer-review process is, in some circumstances, detrimental to the scientific community and the public at large. This is the case when these findings are used to inform medical practice or public health policies. For example, following concerns about the scientific validity of a study investigating the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, accepted for publication in less than a day after submission [33], post-publication reviews were commissioned. These reviews, published 4 months after the initial publication, [28, 62], pointed out major methodological and ethical flaws. Despite this, the paper was not retracted, on the grounds that it gives room for scientific debate'
Apart from the above, we can also note that this paper was a commentary and not a formal research paper. We can clearly see that this paper would not have been of any use in informing decision-making by a healthcare professional.
I would therefore again discount this paper in terms of the original challenge.
Best wishes, Neil
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org