At the start of 2020, countries across the globe announced lock down measures in response to an outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (i.e., the virus that causes the Covid-19 disease). It is thought that the outbreak originated in a live animal market Wuhan China in the latter part of 2019. During the initial confirmation of the outbreak, scientists worked around the clock to figure out a vaccine to treat the disease. Given the time pressure and the threat of billions of deaths, for-profit publishers agreed to waive their usual publication fees, expedited peer-review, and made research related to Covid-19 immediately and freely available to all.
Suddenly the world became consumed by the race to find a vaccine and scientists such as Sir Chris Witty in the UK and Anthony Fauci in the US became hugely influential public figures. Everyone was reading about the latest research in the hope of understanding if we were edging closer to returning to an existence without lock down, face masks, and standing in the street clapping key workers. It wasn’t just positive results we were searching through either, the public now understood the value of null results as scientists tried to understand what worked and importantly, what didn’t. Time was of the essence and wasting time and money reproducing flawed research was not on the agenda.
It wasn’t just medical research examining treatments for the Covid-19 disease that were seen as important either. Those of us concerned with spreading the virus were regularly shocked by people flouting the rules around mask wearing during our weekly visit to the supermarket or disgusted by politicians engaging in large gatherings despite telling us we should isolate. Social studies such as those examining how to effectively communicate the need to stay at home to limit spread of the virus also became of vital importance –even if some of our politicians were incapable of following their own guidance.
As for academia, it seemed everyone was consumed by the impact that Covid-19 was having on the communities they serve. Researchers from across all disciplines began to study the impact of locking people down on issues such as mental health, physical activity, loneliness and much more. It seemed that every other paper was a study related to Covid-19 and the quality of publications was, at times, poor. The publish or perish mentality of academia left many researchers with little choice other than to pivot into Covid-19 research. Their careers depended on it.
With so much literature being created and the outcomes so vital for the survival of humanity, the pressure to verify claims increased dramatically. No longer was it okay to say that the “data is available on request”. Researchers wanted the data and they wanted it now. They were no longer satisfied to simply “trust” that the research was conducted in a rigorous manner. They needed to see behind the curtain and understand how the research was conducted for themselves. The stakes were too high to accept results on good faith alone.
In many fields, sharing data and the materials used to conduct the study became the norm. At the same time, prominent politicians also began questioning science. No doubt irked by being told to stay in one of his mansions, figures such as Donald Trump undermined public trust in science by wildly speculating around the efficacy of vaccines. In response, scientists doubled down and became even more transparent in their approach. Tools such as preregistering, that is outlining how you will conduct the study publicly before commencing data collection, rose in prominence across the natural and life sciences.
Whilst the global pandemic itself may be a thing of the past, the impact of Covid-19 forced us to rethink the way we design, report, and publish research. Whilst the activities described here were increasing in prevalence across scientific disciplines, there can be little doubt that the pandemic increased the urgency for open science (i.e., the umbrella term that encapsulates the principles and practices that are described here). Having collectively experienced the results of ppen science first hand, there is now no putting the genie back in the bottle. Researchers, policy makers, and the public alike have seen the need for open science. They understand the importance of transparency and rigour in science. They see the importance of science communication, the need to be able to critically analyse information, and the need for research to be openly and freely available to all. The public now wants a voice in the research they participate in and often fund through their taxes. Until all science is open, open science is not going away.
As we reflect on the lessons learned during the global pandemic, it is clear that society stands at a crossroads in its relationship with science. Covid-19 highlighted the importance of open science globally and placed it firmly on the agendas of progressive governments1. It showed that institutions must prioritise comprehensive training in open science principles and practices, not just for emerging researchers, but also supporting established academics to develop their skills. The pre-Covid era of science is over and we must ensure the current and next generations are equipped to deal with the challenges of doing science in a post-covid world. We must also learn lessons in how research was shared during the global pandemic and avoid returning to the status quo of for-profit publishers locking away important research behind paywalls. If Covid-19 was important enough for publishers to remove their paywalls and open the science, we must ask ourselves why we are prepared to restrict the sharing of research around other important diseases (e.g., cancer) or globally catastrophic topics such as climate change in the name of profit. Ultimately, the transformation towards open science is not just about changing practices, but about shifting the entire culture of academia. It requires a collective effort from researchers, institutions, and policymakers to build a scientific ecosystem that values openness, reproducibility, trustworthiness, and collaboration. Only then can we ensure that the positive changes created by the pandemic become the enduring legacy of 21st-century science.