Cargando…
Global academic response to COVID‐19: Cross‐sectional study
This study explores the response to COVID‐19 from investigators, editors, and publishers and seeks to define challenges during the early stages of the pandemic. A cross‐sectional bibliometric review of COVID‐19 literature was undertaken between 1 November 2019 and 24 March 2020, along with a compara...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7362145/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32836910 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/leap.1317 |
_version_ | 1783559447279304704 |
---|---|
author | Helliwell, Jack A. Bolton, William S. Burke, Joshua R. Tiernan, Jim P. Jayne, David G. Chapman, Stephen J. |
author_facet | Helliwell, Jack A. Bolton, William S. Burke, Joshua R. Tiernan, Jim P. Jayne, David G. Chapman, Stephen J. |
author_sort | Helliwell, Jack A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | This study explores the response to COVID‐19 from investigators, editors, and publishers and seeks to define challenges during the early stages of the pandemic. A cross‐sectional bibliometric review of COVID‐19 literature was undertaken between 1 November 2019 and 24 March 2020, along with a comparative review of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) literature. Investigator responsiveness was assessed by measuring the volume and type of research published. Editorial responsiveness was assessed by measuring the submission‐to‐acceptance time and availability of original data. Publisher‐responsiveness was assessed by measuring the acceptance‐to‐publication time and the provision of open access. Three hundred and ninety‐eight of 2,835 COVID‐19 and 55 of 1,513 MERS search results were eligible. Most COVID‐19 studies were clinical reports (n = 242; 60.8%). The submission‐to‐acceptance [median: 5 days (IQR: 3–11) versus 71.5 days (38–106); P < .001] and acceptance‐to‐publication [median: 5 days (IQR: 2–8) versus 22.5 days (4–48·5‐; P < .001] times were strikingly shorter for COVID‐19. Almost all COVID‐19 (n = 396; 99.5%) and MERS (n = 55; 100%) studies were open‐access. Data sharing was infrequent, with original data available for 104 (26.1%) COVID‐19 and 10 (18.2%) MERS studies (P = .203). The early academic response was characterized by investigators aiming to define the disease. Studies were made rapidly and openly available. Only one‐in‐four were published alongside original data, which is a key target for improvement. KEY POINTS: COVID‐19 publications show rapid response from investigators, specifically aiming to define the disease. Median time between submission and acceptance of COVID‐19 articles is 5 days demonstrating rapid decision‐making compared with the median of 71.5 days for MERS articles. Median time from acceptance to publication of COVID‐19 articles is 5 days, confirming the ability to introduce rapid increases at times of crisis, such as during the SARS outbreak. The majority of both COVID‐19 and MERS articles are available open‐access. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7362145 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73621452020-07-15 Global academic response to COVID‐19: Cross‐sectional study Helliwell, Jack A. Bolton, William S. Burke, Joshua R. Tiernan, Jim P. Jayne, David G. Chapman, Stephen J. Learn Publ Original Articles This study explores the response to COVID‐19 from investigators, editors, and publishers and seeks to define challenges during the early stages of the pandemic. A cross‐sectional bibliometric review of COVID‐19 literature was undertaken between 1 November 2019 and 24 March 2020, along with a comparative review of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) literature. Investigator responsiveness was assessed by measuring the volume and type of research published. Editorial responsiveness was assessed by measuring the submission‐to‐acceptance time and availability of original data. Publisher‐responsiveness was assessed by measuring the acceptance‐to‐publication time and the provision of open access. Three hundred and ninety‐eight of 2,835 COVID‐19 and 55 of 1,513 MERS search results were eligible. Most COVID‐19 studies were clinical reports (n = 242; 60.8%). The submission‐to‐acceptance [median: 5 days (IQR: 3–11) versus 71.5 days (38–106); P < .001] and acceptance‐to‐publication [median: 5 days (IQR: 2–8) versus 22.5 days (4–48·5‐; P < .001] times were strikingly shorter for COVID‐19. Almost all COVID‐19 (n = 396; 99.5%) and MERS (n = 55; 100%) studies were open‐access. Data sharing was infrequent, with original data available for 104 (26.1%) COVID‐19 and 10 (18.2%) MERS studies (P = .203). The early academic response was characterized by investigators aiming to define the disease. Studies were made rapidly and openly available. Only one‐in‐four were published alongside original data, which is a key target for improvement. KEY POINTS: COVID‐19 publications show rapid response from investigators, specifically aiming to define the disease. Median time between submission and acceptance of COVID‐19 articles is 5 days demonstrating rapid decision‐making compared with the median of 71.5 days for MERS articles. Median time from acceptance to publication of COVID‐19 articles is 5 days, confirming the ability to introduce rapid increases at times of crisis, such as during the SARS outbreak. The majority of both COVID‐19 and MERS articles are available open‐access. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2020-07-01 2020-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7362145/ /pubmed/32836910 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/leap.1317 Text en © 2020 The Author(s). Learned Publishing published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of ALPSP. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Helliwell, Jack A. Bolton, William S. Burke, Joshua R. Tiernan, Jim P. Jayne, David G. Chapman, Stephen J. Global academic response to COVID‐19: Cross‐sectional study |
title | Global academic response to COVID‐19: Cross‐sectional study |
title_full | Global academic response to COVID‐19: Cross‐sectional study |
title_fullStr | Global academic response to COVID‐19: Cross‐sectional study |
title_full_unstemmed | Global academic response to COVID‐19: Cross‐sectional study |
title_short | Global academic response to COVID‐19: Cross‐sectional study |
title_sort | global academic response to covid‐19: cross‐sectional study |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7362145/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32836910 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/leap.1317 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT helliwelljacka globalacademicresponsetocovid19crosssectionalstudy AT boltonwilliams globalacademicresponsetocovid19crosssectionalstudy AT burkejoshuar globalacademicresponsetocovid19crosssectionalstudy AT tiernanjimp globalacademicresponsetocovid19crosssectionalstudy AT jaynedavidg globalacademicresponsetocovid19crosssectionalstudy AT chapmanstephenj globalacademicresponsetocovid19crosssectionalstudy |