In July 2020, Brazil has the world’s second highest Covid-19 death toll. The COVID-19 pandemic is spreading fast in America. Since the first case of COVID-19 was confirmed, it took 114 days in Brazil (February 26-June 19) and 98 days in the USA (January 21-April 29) for the number of cases to reach more than 1,000,000. Parallel to the rapid growth of COVID-19 cases, there has been a progression in the number of scientific publications. Until June 2020, more than 25,800 papers about COVID-19 were published in PubMed (17,800 open access – 69%). This volume of scientific publications is unprecedent. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), for example, received more than 11,000 submissions from January 1 to June 1, 2020, compared with approximately 4,000 submissions during the same period in 2019. The International Journal of Cardiovascular Sciences is facing a similar situation with more than doubled manuscripts submitted. Our aim is to discuss the importance of Open Science during the COVID-19 pandemic and the role of cardiology journals in this special moment.

COVID-19 is a new disease and many of its aspects are still obscure. What is known about SARS-CoV-2 transmission, incubation, and environmental stability? What are the risk factors for the disease? What is the best evidence-based therapy? What is the real importance of asymptomatic and presymptomatic virus shedding in SARS- CoV-2 transmission? How long neutralizing antibodies persist following infection, and do they confer immunity to reinfection? These and many other key questions are still unanswered. There is a great need for fast and efficient publication of information, but at the same time all efforts must be made to assure quality, and avoid biases and limitations.

[…]

BACKGROUND: Requirements for Institutional Review Board approval and informed consent for research involving human subjects have existed for more than 2 decades. However, evidence of fulfillment of these requirements is sometimes lacking in cardiovascular research reports in Argentina. Since ethical standards vary between committees, there may be some confusion among researchers regarding the need for an ethical review when conducting low risk research. OBJECTIVE: To examine the frequency of obtaining an ethical review and informed consent in cardiovascular research in Argentina. METHODS: Through a questionnaire, we contacted authors of 100 reports submitted to our annual scientific meeting during 2006. RESULTS: Thirty six per cent of questionnaires were resubmitted with confirmation of ethical review, 34% responded that ethical review was not obtained, 23% reported as being exempt and 7% were never resubmitted. Most articles obtaining ethical review were pharmacological trials or research involving assessment of new devices. On the other hand, most articles reporting lack of or exemption from ethical review come from epidemiological research or studies evaluating non-invasive methods. Sixty percent of phase IV pharmacological trials, research on cellular implantation or assessment of new devices met federal regulations requirements. CONCLUSION: The rate of ethical review and use of informed consent in cardiovascular reports in Argentina vary among articles. Most research involving prospective observational studies and nearly 50% of protocols including intervention or invasive procedures do not report ethical review. This high proportion of articles lacking ethical review suggests the presence of legal and ethical flaws which should be discussed and overcome.