bioRxiv & medRxiv; Communicating at the Speed of Science

“Preprint servers bioRxiv & medRxiv have experienced unprecedented growth and attention during these past 18 months as they have contributed to the scientific community’s collaborative response to the present international health crisis. The frequent reports in mass-media outlets alone, after January 2020, demonstrate that bioRxiv and medRxiv are becoming recognized Open Science digital repositories that are at the center of rapidly disseminating scientific research freely throughout the world.

Please join us on Oct 26th at 11am for our inaugural session during Open Access Week 2021 as the Harvard Library welcomes Richard Sever, Assistant Director Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press & Co-founder of the preprint servers bioRxiv and medRxiv. Dr. Sever will share his observations and reflections on the exponential growth and impact that preprints have had on advancing scientific communication during this unprecedented time.”

Changes in Access to ClinicalKey | Dana Medical Library

“The University Libraries are disappointed to announce that ClinicalKey, a large collection of biomedical books and journals, will no longer be available to the UVM community, starting on Friday, October 22nd. Unfortunately, negotiations with Elsevier, the publisher behind these resources, came to an unfruitful conclusion. Our budget cannot bear the quadrupled price increase Elsevier proposed…”

All Things PrePrints: An Introduction

“The last year has seen a global spike in health and life science preprints. In June of 2020 the NIH even launched a pilot project to include COVID-19 related preprints in PubMed search results. This librarian shop talk will cover preprint definitions, how to locate them, and their impact as part of the biomedical research corpus. The event will conclude with discussion and myth busting of common concerns so librarians can talk knowledgeably with their users all things preprints at their own institutions. Two brief interactive break-outs will encourage participants to review the scope of preprints at their own institutions and address other common elements of concern.”


Open Science and Data Policy Developments: Virtual SciDataCon 2021 Strand – CODATA, The Committee on Data for Science and Technology

“Virtual SciDataCon 2021 is organised around a number of thematic strands.  This is the third of a series of announcements presenting these strands to the global data community. Please note that registration is free, but participants must register for each session they wish to attend.

The  COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated some of the benefits of Open Science practices, while highlighting persistent shortcomings in current science system. The deepening climate crisis underlines the need for targeted data gathering and action oriented research. In the policy sphere, 2021 started with the adoption of the ‘Recommendation of the OECD Council concerning Access to Research Data from Public Funding’.  November should see the adoption of a Recommendation on Open Science by the UNESCO General Conference: a major achievement which it is hoped will have a mobilising effect on Members States world-wide. The UNESCO Recommendation defines shared values and principles for Open Science, and identifies concrete measures on Open Science, with proposals to bring citizens closer to science and commitments to facilitate the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge around the world.

On Tuesday 19 October, SciDataCon will host a strand of session exploring these and other important Open Science and data policy developments.  Two sessions relate to the implementation of the OECD Recommendation. The third will include an update on the UNESCO Recommendation and other developments….”

Charting a path in Open Science towards diversity, equity, and inclusion

“Our definition of Open is one that invites all researchers to contribute, learn from, and build on scientific discoveries, no matter where you are in the world.

Listen to our Co-Editors-in-Chief’s discuss diversity, equity and inclusion in Open Science from the field of Global Public Health…”

Research for the Public Good | Public Scholarship and Engagement

“Eisen has always been in favor of sharing his research. When he was a graduate student, he shared findings about his work on genomics and evolution on his website before publishing them in any journal. But his commitment to and passion for open access to scientific research exploded in 2003 when the issue became personal.

While pregnant, Eisen’s wife underwent an amniocentesis — a relatively common procedure. Unfortunately, the procedure was not done correctly and the situation became very dangerous. One of the major complications this created was related to the issue of Rh incompatibility. Due to the mixing of fetal and maternal blood, his wife should have received a RhoGAM immunization. However, the doctors did not initially do this and when pressed a few days later they were unsure if a late immunization could work. So Eisen tried to examine the literature to figure out what to do. Eisen had the scientific training necessary to locate and understand research papers on the topic that could give him the answer. But he couldn’t access them.

“Here I was at 2 a.m. in a hospital room across the street from the genomic center where I worked, and I couldn’t get papers on RhoGAM immunizations,” Eisen said. “There were papers on the topic, I just couldn’t get access to them.” 

His wife survived, but the couple lost their baby. This was a galvanizing incident for Eisen, who said it was the moment he realized, “This is insane.”

“We paid for this research with public dollars,” Eisen continued. “The goal of this research is to benefit humanity and communicate science; here I am a trained person, trying to make a decision, and I couldn’t get the papers. I never looked back and became a relentless supporter of open access to scientific knowledge.” …”

International Survey on Data Sharing and Re-use in Traumatic Stress Research

“The Global Collaboration on Traumatic Stress, a coalition of 11 scientific societies in the field of traumatic stress, is conducting a survey to better understand traumatic stress researchers’ opinions and experiences regarding data sharing and data re-use.

If you are a traumatic stress researcher at any career stage (including trainees) we invite you to share your opinions and experiences by participating in this survey. …”

Acta Radiologica 2003–2017: a 15-year overview – Arnulf Skjennald, 2021

Abstract:  This review article is written as a contribution to the special issue presented in conjunction with the 100th anniversary of Acta Radiologica.

An overview is given of what has happened with and in the journal during the 15 years from 2003 to 2017 and a resume is provided concerning the handling and flow of manuscripts, manuscript publication, scientific prizes awarded by the journal, and finally the process leading up to establishing the new open-access journal Acta Radiologica Short Reports/Acta Radiologica Open.

Equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics | BMC Medical Ethics | Full Text

Abstract:  Background

Rapid data sharing can maximize the utility of data. In epidemics and pandemics like Zika, Ebola, and COVID-19, the case for such practices seems especially urgent and warranted. Yet rapidly sharing data widely has previously generated significant concerns related to equity. The continued lack of understanding and guidance on equitable data sharing raises the following questions: Should data sharing in epidemics and pandemics primarily advance utility, or should it advance equity as well? If so, what norms comprise equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics? Do these norms address the equity-related concerns raised by researchers, data providers, and other stakeholders? What tensions must be balanced between equity and other values?


To explore these questions, we undertook a systematic scoping review of the literature on data sharing in epidemics and pandemics and thematically analyzed identified literature for its discussion of ethical values, norms, concerns, and tensions, with a particular (but not exclusive) emphasis on equity. We wanted to both understand how equity in data sharing is being conceptualized and draw out other important values and norms for data sharing in epidemics and pandemics.


We found that values of utility, equity, solidarity, and reciprocity were described, and we report their associated norms, including researcher recognition; rapid, real-time sharing; capacity development; and fair benefits to data generators, data providers, and source countries. The value of utility and its associated norms were discussed substantially more than others. Tensions between utility norms (e.g., rapid, real-time sharing) and equity norms (e.g., researcher recognition, equitable access) were raised.


This study found support for equity being advanced by data sharing in epidemics and pandemics. However, norms for equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics require further development, particularly in relation to power sharing and participatory approaches prioritizing inclusion. Addressing structural inequities in the wider global health landscape is also needed to achieve equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics.

Data Sharing of Imaging in an Evolving Health Care World: Report of the ACR Data Sharing Workgroup Part 2: Annotation, Curation, and Contracting – Journal of the American College of Radiology

Abstract:  A core principle of ethical data sharing is maintaining the security and anonymity of the data, and care must be taken to ensure medical records and images cannot be reidentified to be traced back to patients or misconstrued as a breach in the trust between health care providers and patients. Once those principles have been observed, those seeking to share data must take the appropriate steps to curate the data in a way that organizes the clinically relevant information so as to be useful to the data sharing party, assesses the ensuing value of the data set and its annotations, and informs the data sharing contracts that will govern use of the data. Embarking on a data sharing partnership engenders a host of ethical, practical, technical, legal, and commercial challenges that require a thoughtful, considered approach. In 2019 the ACR convened a Data Sharing Workgroup to develop philosophies around best practices in the sharing of health information. This is Part 2 of a Report on the workgroup’s efforts in exploring these issues.


Open Access and Article Processing Charges in Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery Journals: a CrossSectional Analysis

Abstract Introduction: Open access (OA) publishing often requires article processing charges (APCs). While OA provides opportunities for broader readership, authors able to afford APCs are more commonly associated with well-funded, high-income country institutions, skewing knowledge dissemination. Here, we evaluate publishing models, OA practices, and APCs in cardiology and cardiac surgery. Methods: The InCites Journal Citation Reports 2019 directory by Clarivate Analytics was searched for “Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems” journals. Sister journals of included journals were identified. All journals were categorized as predominantly cardiology or cardiac surgery. Publishing models, APCs, and APC waivers were defined for all journals. Results: One hundred sixty-one journals were identified (139 cardiology, 22 cardiac surgery). APCs ranged from $244 to $5,000 ($244-5,000 cardiology; $383-3,300 cardiac surgery), with mean $2,911±891 and median $3,000 (interquartile range [IQR]: $2,500-3,425) across 139 journals with non-zero available APCs ($2,970±890, median $3,000, IQR: $2,573-3,450, cardiology; $2,491±799, median $2,740, IQR: $2,300-3,000, cardiac surgery). Average APCs were $3,307±566 and median $3,250 (IQR: $3,000- 3,500) for hybrid journals ($3,344±583, median $3,260, IQR: $3,000-3,690, cardiology; $2,983±221, median $2,975, IQR: $2,780- 3,149, cardiac surgery) and $1,997±832 and median $2,100 (IQR: $1,404-2,538) for fully OA journals ($2,039±843, median $2,100, IQR: $1,419-2,604, cardiology; $1,788±805, median $2,000, IQR: $1,475-2,345, cardiac surgery). Waivers were available for 51 (86.4%) fully OA and 37 (37.4%) hybrid journals. Seventeen journals were fully OA without APCs, one journal did not yet release APCs, and four journals were subscription-only. Conclusion: OA publishing is common in cardiology and cardiac surgery with substantial APCs. Waivers remain limited, posing barriers for unfunded and lesser-funded researchers.”

Prospective Clinical Trial Registration: A Prerequisite for Publishing Your Results | Radiology

“The ICMJE requires that clinical trial results be published in the same clinical trial depository where the trial is registered. These results are in the form of a short (?500 words) abstract or table (6,7). Full disclosure of the existing results publication in a clinical trial registry should be explicitly stated when the manuscript is submitted for publication. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has indicated it will enforce trial results reporting related to (8). The FDA is authorized to seek civil monetary penalties from responsible parties, including additional civil monetary penalties. In the United States, the sponsor of an applicable clinical trial is considered the responsible party, unless or until the sponsor designates a qualified principal investigator as the responsible party. The FDA issued its first Notice of Noncompliance in April 2021 for failure to report results in based on a lack of reporting the safety and effectiveness results for the drug dalantercept in combination with axitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (8).

Finally, as of July 1, 2018, manuscripts submitted to ICMJE journals that report the results of clinical trials must contain a data sharing statement. Clinical trials that begin enrolling participants on or after January 1, 2019, must include a data sharing plan in the trial registration. (for further information, see Since most clinical trials take 2 or more years for results to be reported, the Radiology editorial board had expected such mandatory data sharing plans to be reported in the current year. However, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, many clinical trials were halted. Thus, journal publication requirements to include data sharing statements are more likely to impact authors beginning in 2023. Data sharing statements required for Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) journals may be found at

In conclusion, prospective clinical trial registration is a mechanism allowing us to ensure transparency in clinical research conduct, honest and complete reporting of the clinical trial results, and minimization of selective result publications. Since its inception in 2004, this requirement has evolved into a policy that is practiced by major medical journals worldwide, is mandatory for publication of trial results, and, in some circumstances, is enforced by the FDA. Further, ICMJE journals, including RSNA journals, are expecting manuscripts that report trial results to include statements on data sharing. As each clinical trial design is unique, we encourage authors to refer to the full description of the current ICMJE policy at for additional information pertaining to their specific circumstances.”

Frontiers | Open Science for Veterinary Education Research | Veterinary Science

“The manifesto for reproducible science (15) details a range of approaches that can be used to support more open research practices. For veterinary education, there are a number that can be integrated into our current practice….

Data sharing is another aspect of reporting which supports openness within education research. While data sharing is highly prevalent in some fields, there are complex ethical considerations regarding human data within social science contexts (32, 36). Where participants are informed and have consented to share their data, and where reasonable precautions are taken regarding ethical concerns (37), sharing data can help reduce unnecessary data collection, support the development of researchers in areas like the Global South (38), and help to catch errors within the research process (39).

Finally, dissemination and reporting can be further improved through pre-printing, the process of making articles available prior to peer-review. Pre-printing has a host of benefits (40, 41) including enhancing sight of the findings and facilitating open review, improving the transparency of peer review, and facilitating the publication of controversial findings. Pre-printing also allows for the sharing of author’s final version manuscripts, as they can be updated post peer-review. This will support the availability of research beyond paywalls. Unfortunately, not all journals support pre-printing. In the author’s experience, both Medical Teacher and Journal of Veterinary Medical Education have in 2020–2021 discouraged the use of pre-printing by considering it prior-publication, thus making pre-printed papers unable to be published by those journals. However, other journals, such as Frontiers in Veterinary Science support the use of open publishing approaches. Researchers must be cautious in pre-printing to ensure they are not inadvertently cutting themselves off from their desired audience, but should also participate in journal communities to encourage pre-printing where appropriate….”

Research Science Network

“We publicize key results of recent research articles, with visual content easy to understand rapidly. Save time in understanding science…

– We are a start-up that is being supported and developed at Harvard Innovation labs since 2020?

– We provide [open access] videos of less than 8 minutes that emphasize key elements of recently published research articles?

– We are innovating the way to receive recent research findings in a concise and fast manner?

– Our visual content includes interviews of authors who summarize their findings and give their point of view regarding their study?

– Our videos feature the authors name, their affiliated institution, and their journal ”