Open Science, open access: literature review of the scientific communication about Covid-19 on the SciELO platform (2020)

From the perspective of Open Science by means of open access, the study analyzes the scientific communication about Covid-19, made available by the SciELO platform, until February 19, 2021. With a qualitative approach, content analysis is used for data collection and interpretation. The research is divided into two steps: the first presents the general results on publications, the journals that mostly disseminated the studies, the types of scientific communication used, the citation indexes, and the distribution of articles by thematic areas. The second step shows the aspects listed above and presents a ranking of the 50 most accessed and cited articles. Conclusions show that SciELO made 3,165 publications available, of which 2,042 are scientific articles. The 30 most productive journals are responsible for 43% of the publications. 2,296 documents are from the Health Sciences area and have been identified on 52 different topics related to Covid-19. Among the 42 most accessed and cited studies, three main axes were found: 1) Scientific protagonism: the contribution of science in the fight against Covid-19 – public actions and policies; 2) Protocols and diagnostics for health professionals and spaces; 3) Social, political, and economic issues in the pandemic.


Introduction
Health is democracy! This phrase, evoked in some editorials of the magazine 'Saúde em Debate', is necessary and provocative. Faced with the context of the Covid-19 pandemic that affects the entire planet and that, in Brazil, reverberates in overwhelming and shameful proportions, the portrait of misguided, inefficient public management, which devalues the principles of social well-being, is wide open. The federal government irresponsibly distorts the value of science, public health, the environment, culture and education, becoming harmful to society, health and democracy.
The pandemic has changed the social, cultural and economic context of the population and has left daily marks in the lives of thousands of people who lost the loved ones. On March 30, 2021, Brazil faced a new wave of the disease, and statistics revealed more than 318,000 deaths, 3,780 of which in the previous 24 hours 1 . Health and epidemiological safety professionals emphasize that sanitary distancing measures are the most promising ways to combat the virus.
Correa Filho and Segall-Correa 2 analyze the lockdown as a form of prevention in Western countries that do not prioritize public policies nor invest in their health systems. Generally, these countries use the arguments of austerity measures to dismantle the social welfare apparatus. The authors denounce the Brazilian government's lack of interest in funding projects that help to fight quickly and effectively against the spread of the virus and the exponential increase in the number of deaths. In countries that do not invest in health, adopting lockdown as an isolated strategy is not sufficient to fight the pandemic.
It is necessary to defend the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS). In this context, Costa, Rizzotto and Lobato 3 emphasize that the participation of the federal government lacks public actions and policies, by ignoring the fine line between public health and social and economic issues during the pandemic.
They highlight the role of the SUS in remaining active, given the situation of having more than BRL 20 billion in investments subtracted through the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution N. 95 (the PEC of expenditures). Costa, Rizzotto and Lobato 3 reveal the misuse of public resources and the undue actions of embezzlement of public health funds by the current government.
According to Souto and Travassos 4 , the federal government's stance is still aimed at raising the flag of scientific denialism, in addition to creating discord in the midst of the pandemic. Since its inception, the scientific community and health sectors have tried to establish a dialogue and suggest efficient proposals, including the creation of the Brazilian National Plan to Combat the Covid-19 Pandemic. The manifesto is one of the examples cited by the authors, containing 70 recommendations for different sectors of society (citizens, SUS managers, political and health representatives), and seeks to prioritize Primary Health Care networks and strategies.
In the same sense, Giovanella et al. 5 record the federal government's criminal stance and indifference in denying science, ignoring statistics and belittling the pain and grief of citizens who lost their loved ones to Covid-19. They point out and question the misuse of resources destined to combat the pandemic. Of the BRL 338 billion allocated to fight against Covid-19, only BRL 39 million were distributed, i. e., 11% of the total. In contrast, the authors point to popular initiatives involving community organizations that develop joint actions in low-income communities and the action of groups to combat fake news, aimed at promoting prevention and well-being, with up-todate, comprehensive and reliable information.
Open Science is democracy. Policy issues must be considered to reflect the parallel between knowledge creation and society. According to Bobbio 6(84) , in the democratic system, the criteria of visibility and transparency are central: "[...] the government of public power in public". In other words, democracy depends on the public character of power, and citizens participate through access to information and knowledge, both in the administrative and public spheres. In this sense, investment in public policies is essential to strengthen citizenship.
The concept of Open Science emerges as an alternative to establish dialogue and break hierarchies between the scientific environment and society, as it considers different meanings, practices and initiatives in search of the democratization of knowledge, especially if produced in public institutions. According to Albagli, Clinio and Raychtock 7(436) : The discourse for open science also validates the role of knowledge in defending 'common good', strengthening citizenship and building fairer and more sustainable societies.
Therefore, Open Science is based on different modes of action: open access policies, transparency in data management, promotion of free digital culture in the face of the processes of creation and sharing of scientific and artistic works and the participation of citizens who are non-scientists in the production of knowledge. Among the initiatives there are: opening access to publications (open access); open education and educational resources; citizen science; open data; open scientific tools and materials. The State's promotion of scientific production, as a way of opposing science privatization, also makes up the discussions on Open Science and is called democratic school 7 .
Open Science seeks to interact in a different way, besides the tensions and asymmetries seen in the traditional form of scientific production and the general population, which is not found in academies, universities, and research institutions 8 . Open Science focuses on the production of knowledge, based on principles of equity, in the quest to reconcile all types of knowledge produced, within and outside the scientific community. The Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) platform is a means of establishing these ties, making data and information openly available, which may help lay citizens, researchers, healthcare providers and scientists.
This study is a literature review, from the perspective of the epistemology of Open Science; in this sense, it describes the phenomenon studied through the following characteristics: e) Justification: The registration of the dynamics of access to Covid-19 on the platform helps researchers in the field to analyze the current nuances and topics and, thus, contribute to studies in more or less explored fields.

The SciELO platform
SciELO is a model of electronic library of scientific articles on the Internet, which includes open access to national publications from all areas of knowledge. The platform emerged from a cooperation between the São Paulo Research Foundation (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, Fapesp) and the Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information (Bireme). Guedes 9 reports that, according to Abel Packer, SciELO has three main objectives: The first one was to develop a methodology to solve the capacity for online publication because at that time both Brazil and Latin America had few initiatives in this field. The idea was to use the international state of the art to build a solution that would introduce Brazilian journals to the web. The second one, corroborating what Gibbs and Meneghini mentioned above, was to establish a new type of control over the articles, by counting the citations and building an index on the internet complementary to that developed by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), thus leading to a more accurate assessment of Brazilian scientific production. The 3rd objective was to evaluate the use, that is, to measure the use of SciELO through the number of downloads. This, according to Packer, was a logical step since the previous objectives were focused on the visibility and accessibility of the project 9(58-59) .
In this sense, Packer et al. describe that the methodology of the SciELO project and the steps necessary to create the database are: [...] a set of norms, guides, manuals, computer programs, and operational procedures aimed at making the texts of scientific journals available in electronic format 9(71) .
SciELO can be fully accessed for free, and its main purpose is to disseminate scientific research and strengthen collaborative ties between Latin American and Caribbean countries. Searches can be performed by year of publication, author, funding agency, journal, abstract and title. The SciELO platform organizes research results by countries, journals, languages, year of publication and types of scientific literature. The platform has data integration with the Web of Science (WoS), thus it also offers results organized by thematic areas (SciELO and WoS) and citation indexes (cited and non-cited).
In addition to open access and in line with international standards, SciELO has developed priority lines of action formed by principles and objectives for the common development of Brazilian journals and collections 10 based on Open Science initiatives. These lines, arranged in the document in question 10 , propose new ways of communicating scientific knowledge. The following can be mentioned: preprints (publications made available before evaluated by reviewers); continuous flow (publishing approved by the editor without the need to wait for every issue to be complete); citation and reference management; data repositories and programming codes; and transparency in peer review (access to editorial processes among the actors involved and identification of reviewers).

Material and methods
The research approach is based on the objectives outlined by the researchers in relation to the results they seek in their study, which may be qualitative, quantitative or both. Qualitative research has as its main objective the description, understanding and interpretation of facts. Data validation occurs through the consistency obtained in the examination of theoretical elements and investigation findings. According to Martins and Theóphilo 11 , these are qualitative data: descriptions, direct quotes from people, documents, recordings of interviews, interactions between individuals.
In qualitative research, meaning becomes the central concept of investigation 12 . Even if a certain study presents numerical data, the qualitative approach can use them to justify the importance of argumentative content. According to Minayo 12 , authors who follow the qualitative trend seek to know and explain social phenomena and dynamics, "the dialectic considers the relationship of quantity as one of the qualities of facts and phenomena" 12 (24) . Therefore, this study is part of a research with a qualitative approach.
For data capture, collection and analysis, content analysis was applied 13 , which can be divided into three main stages: pre-analysis; material exploration; and treatment of results and interpretations. According to Bardin 13 , during the pre-analysis phase, the aim is to select the object of study and delimit it by means of criteria for data selection. The exploration of the material consists of administering techniques to the corpus. Result treatment and interpretations are aimed at presenting statistical operations (frequency of the use of terms), synthesizing the results, displaying inferences and interpretations (with theoretical or pragmatic purposes).
This research is presented in two stages: the first one analyzes the general results of the term 'covid-19' found in the SciELO platform; the second specifically analyzes the ranking of the 50 most accessed and cited publications on the platform.
Inserting the term 'covid-19' in the simple search field of the SciELO platform was intentional. In addition to the general search, the platform offers advanced search options, provides data on the topic on the SciELO Data, and offers a page where all publications and information about Covid-19 are concentrated. The purpose was to simulate the search behavior of readers, who may not dominate search engines as much as the public of students and researchers who access the content through the advanced search option and/or by applying technical terms and controlled vocabularies. The intention is to simulate the research based on the search needs of the general public.
Data was collected on February 19, 2021, the results were downloaded, and the pages were copied via 'print screen', in order to record the results through images, exactly as they had been shown since the beginning of the search steps. The information collected refers to general statistical data offered by SciELO: The second stage of the study, between March 9 and 16, 2021, investigates more specific details about the publications of the '50 most cited and accessed studies on Covid-19'. The order of the articles (ranking), the date of collection in the database, the authorship, the title, the researchers' institution of origin, the access link of the publication on the platform, the abstract and keywords (if any) were considered because, in addition to scientific articles, all types of publication that appeared in the results were analyzed. The date of publication on the platform (e-pub) and a field to record relevant observations about the documents were also taken into account.

First step -general data analysis
The dynamics of the platform means that the results are constantly changing. Therefore, it is important to emphasize the survey and collection dates for the research -which   The phenomenon of Covid-19 gives rise to studies in several areas of knowledge, as seen above. In the WoS thematic areas, the fields and subfields of the health area are detailed in table 2, with the respective numbers of publications. source: prepared by the authors, 2021.
The 52 themes come along with the number of studies, organized from the largest to the smallest number of publications. The number of records pervades the total number of documents, demonstrating the trans and interdisciplinarity of the publications. The lower the result involving the study topics, the greater the relevance of new publications covering the phenomenon studied, within the specialties in the field of health.

Second step -the 50 most accessed and cited publications about Covid-19 on the Scielo Platform
Based on the platform's search filters, the characteristics of the 50 most accessed publications and the 50 most cited ones were analyzed through the creation of a 'ranking', from the 1st to the 50th place. When comparing the results (most accessed and most cited publications),  Radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging 1

Total 56
As in the study of the general results, the thematic areas are superior to the total number of publications, due to the indexation of the publications in more than one thematic area. It is worth noting the variability of the topics found.

THE SUBTRACTION OF REPEATED REFERENCES
The '50 most cited/accessed' studies ranking is made up of 42 different publications. It was observed that eight publications occupy more than one place in the ranking. So, how do we consider this information? Two solutions were determined, and from the '50 most', we decided to have the '42 most accessed/cited': Solution 1 -The situation found in the sample of '50' results should also be repeated in the general collection of publications, with a total of 3,165. The most neutral decision is to consider the results given by the database. Some results repeat because some studies may have been published in different formats and languages simultaneously, generating instantaneous results, automated by the statistical mechanisms of the base. In this sense, the most appropriate decision is to point out the issue and faithfully bring the results given by SciELO.
Solution 2 -to identify each work, maintain the best placement and exclude consecutive positions from repeated studies, since the report shows the ranking by means of the general reference of the study, without specifying the type of literature. From now on, the reference to the '50 most' will be replaced by the '42 most'. Therefore, the perspective becomes even more qualitative, as the study is carried out having as main criteria the specificities and characteristics of each publication, through content analysis 12 in several fields of the documents.

TO FEBRUARY 2021
Among the 42 most cited/accessed studies, the publication date back to March 16, 2020 and May 8, 2020. On March 16th and 27th, and April 3rd, there was a record of one document published per date. On March 23 and 30, and April 6 and 27, two studies were published per day. On April 9, three studies were published, and on April 17, there were four publications. Six publications were released on April 22nd, and six more on the 30th of the same month. May 8 featured 12 published studies. It was the most productive day in the scientific production timeline of the most cited/accessed studies.
The time factor, according to the publication dates, justifies the preference and position of publications in the ranking. The most accessed and cited study is also the first published one (March 16, 2020). The date with the highest number of published studies (May 8) makes it clear that, as time passes, researchers have more data, statistics and information to compose and disseminate increasingly detailed studies.
Where does the science of the 42 most accessed/cited come from? To answer this question, the number of time the researchers' home institutions was mentioned. In this sense, it must be taken into account that there are authors who are related with more than one institution they represent. The researchers' institutions reveal the origin and variety of knowledge production of the most accessed and cited studies (graph 2). There were a total of 126 institutions mentioned in the material analyzed and they were of different types, such as: hospitals, university hospitals, public universities; private universities, foundations and research institutes, government divisions, journals (editorial staff members), and foreign institutions (various). It is also worth considering that the number of institutions mentioned varies not only with the number of publications, but with the number of authors and co-authors present in each study, because there are publications with 1 or 2 authors and also those with up to 11 authors.
There were 21 references to 15  Three distinct government divisions are mentioned six times: the São Paulo State Health Department (three times), the Ministry of Health (two times), followed by the Ministry of Economy (once). Members of the editorial board mention two different journals: 'Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular' (RBCCV, mentioned twice) and 'Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões' (mentioned once).
Foreign institutions were also highlighted, with 20 references, comprising universities (mentioned 12), hospitals (mentioned seven times) and research institutions (mentioned twice). Of the universities, four are from Spain, three from Portugal, two from Sweden, two from Colombia and one from the United States. The hospitals are all from Portugal, and the research institutes are from Portugal and the United States. It is worth mentioning that the variety of institutions refers to the extent of research of the studies analyzed. The following section maps the narrative content of publications.

Analysis of the 42 most accessed/ cited studies
From the data collection, the content of the publications was analyzed, taking into account three aspects: title, abstract and keywords (if any). Based on the material, three main axes of studies were found: a) scientific protagonism or how scientific research can contribute to the fight against Covid-19: public actions and policies; b) protocols and diagnoses for healthcare providers and health spaces. This material also has studies on imaging tests and diagnostics of patients with Covid-19; c) social, political and economic issues evoked by the pandemic, among them, questions about the health and quality of life of healthcare providers. The purpose is to bring reflections and provide subsidies for coping with the pandemic, both at a macro-social level 16,27 and in specific spaces, especially in health environments. Thus, Medeiros 28 approaches the pandemic considering the reality of university hospitals. Since its inception, several controversial issues have been raised, including the use of drugs that have not been scientifically proven due to incomplete studies and their level of efficacy, as is the case with chloroquine 29,30 . In dialogue with this topic and with the need for description, as a specific category, research on imaging and diagnostic test in patients with Covid-19 present the discussions by Araujo-Filho et al. 42 on the efficiency of chest X-ray tests for virus screening and identification. The authors point out the debate in medical society about the complexity and uncertainty of results, especially in asymptomatic patients.
Even though it is not recommended for early detection of the disease, Muniz, Milito, and Marchiori 43 describe how Computed Tomography (CT) presents valuable results to understand the manifestation of the disease in patients with advanced stages of the disease. The researchers describe the stages of the disease in two patients coming from abroad. The studies conducted by Shoji et al. 44 mention the benefits found in chest CT, in order to prepare efficient and structured reports on the manifestation of the disease so that specialist physicians from different areas can study. In this sense, the first CT records on the manifestation of the disease have become important documents, as prepared by Moreira, Brotto, and Marchiori 45 . The halo sign contributes to the diagnoses of Covid-19, according to the studies conducted by Farias et al. 46 and Farias, Strabelli and Sawamura 47 , despite being a tomographic finding with a wide differential diagnosis.

ISSUES EVOKED BY THE PANDEMIC
This axis, composed of 13 studies, shows research of a sociological nature. In this sense, the organization of the studies is divided into subcategories according to the similarities between the discussions: scenarios of the pandemic, social subjects and healthcare providers. a) Scenarios of the pandemic It presents three studies on contexts and situations that relate the community in general and the effects of the disease. In the face of a new pandemic, everything is unknown. Among the initial strategies to understand the effects of Covid-19, scientists, doctors and researchers sought to understand the dimension of severity caused by the virus with existing resources and protocols. As Freitas, Napimoga and Donalisio 48 report, studies on Influenza served as a basis for measuring the severity of the pandemic. The authors analyze the cases using the Pandemic Severity Assessment Framework, a risk assessment tool that measures levels of transmissibility and clinical severity. Thus, the researchers say that the Covid-19 pandemic is one of the most severe in history.
Given the situation predicted since the first studies on the spread of the disease in Brazil, Oliveira, Lucas, and Iquiapaza 49 indicate the importance of rigorously adopting behavioral and individual and collective hygiene measures and etiquette, constantly cleaning environments and surfaces, and keeping social distancing. These preventive actions, combined with each other and carried out together, are known as Non-Pharmacological Interventions (NPI) 50 . Garcia 50 discusses the combination of wearing masks and its effectiveness together with other measures, as it would reduce the chances of infection by asymptomatic people. At the time the study was published (April 2020), wearing masks was neither a widespread habit nor mandatory. b) Social subjects It is composed of cultural and behavioral studies. It analyzes health issues in public and private spaces regarding the consequences of the pandemic in social groups, with varied socioeconomic, geographic, historical and professional contexts in a general or specific way.
Three populations are the focus of work by Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al. 19 , Lima et al. 20 and González-Olmo et al. 51 . The Comunidad Autónoma Vasca, located in northern Spain, is the field of study of Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al. 19 . The survey was carried out with 976 people to measure levels of anxiety, stress, and depression caused by confinement. In Brazil, the study conducted by Lima et al. 20 assesses the behavioral aspects and beliefs of the population from the state of Ceará regarding the pandemic. The survey had the participation of 2,259 people. Oral health is the focus of the survey, carried out with 1,008 people randomly approached in Madrid by González-Olmo et al. 51 . The aim of the study was to identify the impact of Covid-19 on the self-perception of vulnerability, infectiousness and aversion to germs in the adult population.
Social isolation and the increase in violence against women are shown by Vieira, Garcia, and Maciel 21 based on publications and reports from international organizations. Marques et al. 18 bring reflections on violence against women, because the longer they live with the aggressor, the more exposed the victims are. This also happens in relation to violence against children and adolescents.
Distance learning in the pandemic and learning productivity are issues raised by Machado et al. 52 . The authors mention the challenges of virtual teaching for medical students and professors, in which training requires theoretical, clinical and laboratory knowledge. The health of workers is addressed by Fiho 53 , to question how activities and working conditions influence the spread of the virus, in order to develop strategies to combat the pandemic. The author raises the issue considering healthcare providers. c) Healthcare providers: leading role in the fight against the pandemic Among social subjects, health workers are protagonists in the fight against Covid-19. Some studies under analysis discuss how the pandemic has influenced the work routine and the quality of life of this group of workers. Given the variety and amount of information and studies produced on the pandemic, Correia, Ramos, and Bahten 54 propose measures to help surgeons, other healthcare providers, and patients in the event of surgery. The document addresses questions about pre, intra and postoperative care, general surgery and the organization of disaster planning and response.
During the pandemic, the mental health of the population has changed. According to Ornell et al. 17 , anxiety, stress and depression are among the most common emotional problems. One of the ways to fight the virus is through social distancing, however, healthcare providers are in direct contact with patients and their fluids. The authors emphasize the importance of tracking and monitoring the mental health of healthcare providers regularly for early detection. In this way, they present intervention strategies and models of mental health care and emphasize the responsibility of government and health agencies to protect the psychological well-being of the health community.
The pandemic has strongly impacted companies. According to Andrade 55 , it is up to physicians to protect themselves and the employees, as well as identify and suggest better adaptations through the elaboration of care protocols and standardized behaviors for the health team. According to the author, company doctors need to exercise their leadership skills and develop strategies to seek better health conditions at work.

Final considerations
Open Science and open access guarantee transparency and ethics in access to information, with the possibility of connecting different levels of knowledge and enhancing knowledge with a social and political emphasis. In addition to fighting the privatization of knowledge, Open Science values the development of public policies, projects and actions of collective interest. SciELO, as a database, guarantees the achievement of the objectives outlined by Open Science. Mapping scientific communication makes it possible to frame the field of knowledge produced on each phenomenon, in this case, Covid-19, from the SciELO platform.
Science is public, and 60% of the institutes cited were federal and state teaching institutions, university hospitals, research foundations and state agencies where the authors of the publications worked. Furthermore, the potential of the production increases as public investments in science, technology, health and education are once again a priority for the federal government.
Considering aspects of scientific communication, 16 journals that have a relevant number of publications are not part of the most accessed/cited studies analyzed in this research: 'Cadernos de Saúde Pública', 'Ciência e Saúde Coletiva', 'SAMJ: South African Medical Journal', and 'Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira'. Studies on the disease evolve daily, considering the volume of publications on the topic in different databases around the world. The 42 most accessed and cited SciELO articles are precursors and deserve recognition also for having served as an initial basis for the development of other research involving the topics presented.
To say the least, it is unethical for private publishing conglomerates to charge for access to research on Covid-19. This attitude hinders scientific development. Open Science, in the social and political sphere, is against the exploitation of scientific intellectual capital. One way of contributing to the strengthening of this movement is to prioritize open access policies, promoted as a form of resistance to the privatization of scientific knowledge. Issues involving the health and well-being of the world's population need to be made available on an open access basis. Health is democracy, Open Science is democracy!

Collaborators
Stueber K (0000-0002-2171-0365)* contributed to study design and planning; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; drafting and critical review of the content and participated in all versions of the manuscript. Silveira FX (0000-0002-5338-1498)* contributed to the writing of sections, critical review of the content and participation in all versions of the manuscript. Teixeira MRF (0000-0002-9888-7185)* contributed to guidance, critical review of the content and participation in all versions of the manuscript. s *Orcid (Open Researcher and Contributor ID).