Read on Twitter
Our new preprint is out! We analyse flaws in the #COVID19 research pipeline (e.g. 43% of fast-tracked articles had conflicts of interest!), argue that #openscience can help solve these problems, and ask you to co-sign showing your support for #openscience moving forward. Thread
https://twitter.com/lonnibesancon/status/1295232965488803840
https://twitter.com/lonnibesancon/status/1295232965488803840
Surprisingly, it wasn't just fast-tracked editorials that contained conflicts of interest. We found high rates of COIs in research articles as well: https://twitter.com/lonnibesancon/status/1295232970895302657?s=20
Open peer review could help assure researchers and the public that #COVID19 findings have been properly vetted by independent experts, before being widely disseminated (with potentially dire consequences). And, of course, reward the important work of reviewers.
cc @TRANSPOSEsci
cc @TRANSPOSEsci
We also find that almost a quarter of retracted #COVID19 research was due to poor design or analyses -- problems that could have been avoided without wasting $$$ if researchers adopted Registered Reports (or at the very least #preregistration).
CC @chrisdc77 @OSFramework
CC @chrisdc77 @OSFramework
For more analyses see the preprint here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.13.249847v1
And please co-sign here if you support our call for greater adoption of open science practices: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSea5_V1ivlJdK0aQPKyKLTRZopGv_XTD_PWcZu0HdJQETR4ug/viewform?usp=send_form
And please co-sign here if you support our call for greater adoption of open science practices: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSea5_V1ivlJdK0aQPKyKLTRZopGv_XTD_PWcZu0HdJQETR4ug/viewform?usp=send_form
