PREreview of Brecha entre políticas e implementación en Ciencia Abierta: un estudio transversal en revistas médicas cubanas

Peer Review

Preprint Title: Gap between policies and implementation in Open Science: a cross-sectional study in Cuban medical journals

Authors: Lee Yang Diaz-Chieng, Roberto Zayas Mujica, Eduardo Enrique Chibás Muñoz, Yonathan Estrada Rodríguez, and Alexis Alejandro García-Rivero

Reviewer: Julian Rodriguez, Jr., FRSA, MRes, M.ISRM (ORCID: 0009-0007-9332-0140)

Summary & Core Contribution

This study offers an honest, badly needed reality check on the state of Open Science in Cuban medical publishing under the Ecimed imprint. By comparing official policies with what journal editors are actually able to do on the ground, the authors highlight a clear gap between intention and execution. This gap isn't unique to Cuba—it’s a global challenge—but seeing how it plays out in a centralized national health system (CNIMI) provides valuable lessons for journal editors and policymakers everywhere.

Strengths

• Grounded in Real Data: Instead of just talking about what Open Science should look like, the authors gathered actual field data across journals to see what is working and what isn't.

• Focuses on Real Obstacles: The paper recognizes that when journals struggle to adopt Open Science, it’s usually not because editors are resisting change. It’s almost always down to practical roadblocks like limited staff time, lack of training, and missing tools.

• Action-Oriented Solutions: The authors focus on realistic steps for the 2024–2028 roadmap—prioritizing staff training and better support rather than just issuing new mandates.

Key Feedback for the Authors

1. Separating Effort from System Delays:

   In my own work on institutional friction—such as the Systemic Intent Shadow framework—I often see how top-down policies expect immediate results without accounting for daily operational realities. When a journal misses a deadline or struggles with new formatting standards, it’s easy for outside observers to assume a lack of compliance. In reality, it’s usually just administrative lag. Framing this gap as a resource and workflow issue rather than a compliance failure will make your case for more institutional support even stronger.

2. The Gap Between Policy and Reality:

   Announcing a new policy creates a brief "illusion of completeness"—it feels like the problem is solved simply because a document was published (a dynamic I discuss in Systemic Disclosure Architecture). Section 3 would benefit from calling out the hidden workload placed on small editorial teams—like managing software updates or manually checking data files. Pointing out this extra strain helps explain why the gap exists.

3. Setting Accessible Milestones:

   The call for better incentives is spot on. To make this practical, suggest small, manageable milestones for editors—such as requiring ORCID iDs and standard open-access licenses before asking teams to tackle complex open data sharing. Taking things step-by-step prevents burnout and keeps progress steady, avoiding the fatigue that comes from over-complicated systems (see The Zero-Defect Paradox).

Recommendation

Accept with Minor Revisions. This is a practical, well-constructed study. By keeping the focus on real-world workflows and human capacity, this paper can serve as a genuine roadmap for open publishing across Latin America and beyond.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they used generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.