Over recent years, the research community has been increasingly using preprint servers to share manuscripts that are not yet peer-reviewed. Even if it enables quick dissemination of research findings, this practice raises several challenges in publication ethics and integrity. In particular, preprints have become an important source of information for stakeholders interested in COVID19 research developments, including traditional media, social media, and policy makers. Despite caveats about their nature, many users can still confuse pre-prints with peer-reviewed manuscripts. If unconfirmed but already widely shared first-draft results later prove wrong or misinterpreted, it can be very difficult to “unlearn” what we thought was true. Complexity further increases if unconfirmed findings have been used to inform guidelines. To help achieve a balance between early access to research findings and its negative consequences, we formulated five recommendations: (a) consensus should be sought on a term clearer than ‘pre-print’, such as ‘Unrefereed manuscript’, “Manuscript awaiting peer review” or ‘’Non-reviewed manuscript”; (b) Caveats about unrefereed manuscripts should be prominent on their first page, and each page should include a red watermark stating ‘Caution—Not Peer Reviewed’; (c) pre-print authors should certify that their manuscript will be submitted to a peer-review journal, and should regularly update the manuscript status; (d) high level consultations should be convened, to formulate clear principles and policies for the publication and dissemination of non-peer reviewed research results; (e) in the longer term, an international initiative to certify servers that comply with good practices could be envisaged.

Background Research has been an essential part of the COVID-19 pandemic response, including in Latin American (LA) countries. However, implementing research in emergency settings poses the challenge of producing valuable knowledge rapidly while upholding research ethical standards. Research ethics committees (RECs) therefore must conduct timely and rigorous ethics reviews and oversight of COVID-19 research. In the LA region, there is limited knowledge on how countries have responded to this need. To address this gap, the objective of our project is to explore if LA countries developed policies to streamline ethics review and oversight of research in response to the pandemic while ensuring its adherence to ethical standards, and to analyze to what extent these governance frameworks are in accordance with international guidance. Methods We conducted a descriptive and exploratory study assessing the COVID-19 research ethics governance frameworks of 19 LA countries, considering 4 dimensions based on international COVID-19 ethics guidance documents: (i) ethics review organizational model adopted, (ii) measures to coordinate between RECs and other research stakeholders, (iii) operational guidance for RECs, and (iv) key ethical issues for review and oversight of COVID-19 research. Results 10 out of 19 LA countries have some policy to streamline ethics review of COVID-19 research. Of these countries only 6 issued comprehensive documents following international guidance that contemplate strategies with recommendations for concrete actions for a timely and rigorous review. Conclusion LA countries adopted partial strategies and operational guidance that may demonstrate a lack of a comprehensive view of research ethics for the review and oversight of COVID-19 research. Continuing efforts should be directed to strengthen LA countries' research capacity to respond timely and ethically to future health emergencies. Past lessons and the ones from this pandemic should be the basis to develop international standards and operational guidelines for ethics review and oversight of any research for public health emergencies.

This paper considers how ethical norms on sharing of human biological materials and related data in international policy documents diffuse from global forums to national policies and practices. With focus on the domestic policies of four countries (i.e. Guinea, Argentina, India and Malawi), this paper seeks to explain policy diffusion by broadly applying an analytical framework wherein policy learning is one of four theories used to explain how countries learn policy norms from expert epistemic communities and international organizations. While the governance structures of all four countries broadly incorporate key ethical provisions in international policy documents on sharing of biological materials and related data for biomedical research, relative emphasis on certain provisions differ among them. In three of these countries (i.e. Guinea, Argentina and India), international ethical norms have had direct influence over their domestic governance policies. Their impact has been greatest for Guinea and Argentina, whose governance policies had to be adapted in response to the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa and the Zika virus epidemic in Latin America. In both countries, sharing of biological materials and related data with international organisations increased significantly to meet therapeutic and research needs during the outbreaks. International organisations have had a comparatively greater role in bringing about policy change in Guinea when compared with Argentina, mainly due to the fragility of the health system in Guinea in 2014. In contrast, policy in India and in Malawi occurred under less strenuous conditions. This may account for the relatively greater emphasis on control and limits to cross-border transferability in their policies when compared with those of Guinea and Argentina. While all four countries have made significant progress in establishing accountable governance arrangements, still more needs to be done to ensure that the ethical goal of equitable sharing of benefits is realised.

A considerable number of clinical trials is being conducted globally in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including in low- and middle-income countries such as those in the Latin America and Caribbean region (LAC). Yet, an abundance of studies does not necessarily shorten the path to find safe and efficacious interventions for COVID-19. We analyze the trials for COVID-19 treatment and prevention that are registered from LAC countries in the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and identify a trend towards small repetitive non-rigorous studies that duplicate efforts and drain limited resources without producing meaningful conclusions on the safety and efficacy of the interventions being tested. We further assess the challenges to conducting scientifically sound and socially valuable research in the LAC region in order to inform recommendations to encourage clinical trials that are most likely to produce robust evidence during the pandemic.

Se está llevando a cabo un número considerable de ensayos clínicos en todo el mundo en respuesta a la pandemia de COVID-19, incluso en países de ingresos bajos y medios como los de América Latina y el Caribe. Sin embargo, la abundancia de estudios no necesariamente acorta el camino para encontrar intervenciones seguras y eficaces frente a la COVID-19. Se analizaron los ensayos para el tratamiento y la prevención de la COVID-19 de los países de América Latina y el Caribe que están registrados en la Plataforma de Registros Internacionales de Ensayos Clínicos de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, y se identificó una tendencia hacia la realización de estudios pequeños, repetitivos y no rigurosos que duplican los esfuerzos y merman recursos limitados sin producir conclusiones significativas sobre la seguridad y la eficacia de las intervenciones evaluadas. Se evaluaron asimismo los desafíos que plantea la realización de investigaciones científicamente sólidas y socialmente valiosas en América Latina y el Caribe a fin de brindar recomendaciones que alienten la realización de ensayos clínicos que tengan más probabilidades de producir evidencia sólida durante la pandemia.