Abstract

This paper summarizes the arguments and counterarguments within the scientific discussion on the issue open science in health economics in the reality of the Covid-19 pandemic. The aim is to study the openness of the results of scientific work in the field of health economics. To achieve this goal, the following tasks have been set: to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the concepts of open science, health, health economics, research, education; author’s structuring of the concept of open science in the context of health economics; identification of the main stakeholders and their role in the field of open science in the field of health economics. The object of research is the field of health economics. The subject of research is the determinants of the impact of open science on the health economy. In order to identify the vectors of scientific developments in recent years in the field of open science and health economics, the method of bibliometric analysis was used using the tools of the Scopus database and the software VOSviewer v.1.6.10. Based on the selected works, terminological maps were constructed for individual categories and the main clusters were identified, as a result of which the intensity of the use of one term with others was assessed. Scientific discoveries play an important role in health care. Especially in a pandemic, access to up-to-date data will save more lives and preserve the health of the world’s population. After all, the level of economic well-being of a country depends on the level of health of the population and its ability to work. It is determined that open science should include combining knowledge and efforts to support research in the field of health economics and reduce the knowledge gap between countries; mobilizing decision-makers, researchers, innovators, publishers and civil society representatives to ensure free access to scientific data, research results, educational resources and research facilities in the field of health economics; strengthening the links between science and political decisions to meet societal needs; ensuring open science for society, despite the fact that the borders between countries are closed. The results of the study can be useful for researchers who have been conducting study on this topic, and students majoring in ‘Health Economics’.

Keywords: open science, research, education, health economics, health care, COVID-19.

JEL Classification: A11, I18.

Cite as: Bukhtiarova, A., Shcherbachenko, V., Artyukhov, A., Krmela, J., & Volk, Iu. (2021). Open Science Investigation of the Health Economics Sector. Health Economics and Management Review, 2(4), 27-37. https://doi.org/10.21272/hem.2021.4-03

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

---

1. Allen C., & Mehler D.M.A. (2019). Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond. PLoS Biol., 17(5), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246. [Google Scholar[
2. Besançon, L., Peiffer-Smadja, N., Segalas, C. et al. (2021). Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Med Res Methodol 21, 117. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01304-y. [Link]
3. Brock, T.C.M., Elliott, K.C., Gladbach, A., Moermond, C., Romeis J., Seiler, T.-B., Solomon, K., & Dohmen, G.P. (2021). Open science in regulatory environmental risk assessment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. doi:10.1002/ieam.4433. [Google Scholar]
4. Chan, E.Y.Y., & Wong, C.S. (2020). Public health prevention hierarchy in disaster context. In Public Health and Disasters (pp. 7-17). Springer, Singapore [Link]
5. Daniel, J. Hicks (2021). Open science, the replication crisis, and environmental public health. Accountability in Research. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2021.1962713. [Google Scholar]
6. Elliott, K.C., & Resnik, D.B. (2019). Making open science work for science and society. Environmental Health Perspectives, 127(7), 075002. doi:10.1289/EHP4808. [Google Scholar]
7. Fell, M.J. (2019). The economic impacts of open science: A rapid evidence assessment. Publications, 7(3), 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030046. [Google Scholar]
8. Homolak, J., Kodvanj, I., Virag, D. (2020). Preliminary analysis of COVID-19 academic information patterns: a call for open science in the times of closed borders. Scientometrics, 124, 2687-701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03587-2. [Google Scholar]
9. Kim S., & Koh, K.  (2021). The effects of income on health: Evidence from lottery wins in Singapore. Journal of Health Economics, 76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2020.102414. [Google Scholar]
10. Prokopenko, O., Shcherbachenko, V., & Kulibaba, V. (2020). Health care anti-crisis management issues in  the  reality  of  the  Covid-19 pandemic.  Health Economics and Management Review,  2,  16-23. http://doi.org/10.21272/hem.2020.2-02. [Google Scholar]
11. Scherp, G., Siegfried, D., Biesenbender, K., & Breuer, C. (2020). The role of Open Science in economics. Results report from an online survey among researchers in economics at German higher education institutions in 2019, ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, Kiel, Hamburg [Google Scholar]
12. Smaldino, P.E., Turner, M.A., & Contreras Kallens, P.A. (2019). Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science. R Soc Open Sci., 6(7), 190194. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190194. [Google Scholar]
13. Towards a global consensus on open science: report on UNESCO’s global online consultation on open science. United Nations. France. 2020. 43 p. [Link]
14. Woynarowska-Soldan, M., Yezhova, O., Sytnyk, O., & Weziak-Bialowolska, D. (2018). Positive health behaviours Polish and Ukrainian medical students in the context of chronic diseases. Przegl Epidemiol, 72(4), 509-523. doi: 10.32394/pe.72.4.26. [Google Scholar]
15. Yeo-The, N.S.L., & Tang, B.L. (2020). An alarming retraction rate for scientific publications on Coronavirus Disease (2019). (COVID-19). Accountability Res., 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1782203. [Google Scholar]