Structure and infrastructure of infectious agent research literature: SARS

An overview of literature on COVID-19, MERS and SARS: Using text mining and latent Dirichlet allocation

The unprecedented outbreak of COVID-19 is one of the most serious global threats to public health in this century. During this crisis, specialists in information science could play key roles to support the efforts of scientists in the health and medical community for combatting COVID-19. In this article, we demonstrate that information specialists can support health and medical community by applying text mining technique with latent Dirichlet allocation procedure to perform an overview of a mass of coronavirus literature. This overview presents the generic research themes of the coronavirus diseases: COVID-19, MERS and SARS, reveals the representative literature per main research theme and displays a network visualisation to explore the overlapping, similarity and difference among these themes. The overview can help the health and medical communities to extract useful information and interrelationships from coronavirus-related studies.

Detecting Latent Topics and Trends in Global Publications on Brucellosis Disease Using Text Mining

Purpose

Brucellosis is widespread globally and one of the most important zoonotic diseases. Therefore, to fully comprehend the disease and discover ways of prevention and treatment, researchers have conducted some research in this field. Hence, this study will focus on the topic trend of scientific publications of brucellosis.

Methods

This study is an applied research using text mining techniques with an analytical approach. The statistical population of the present research is all global publications related to brucellosis. For data extraction, the Scopus citation database was used in the period from 1900 to 2020. The main keywords for search strategy design have been extracted from consultation with thematic specialists and using MESH. Python programming language has been applied to analyze data and implement text mining algorithms.

Results

According to results, eight main topics of “Prevention,” “Clinical symptoms,” “Diagnosis,” “Control,” “Treatment,” “Immunology,” “Structural Features,” and “Pathogenicity” have been identified for brucellosis publications. Moreover, the topics “Prevention” and “Pathogenicity” had the highest and lowest prevalence in the field of brucellosis over time, respectively.

Conclusion

This study has revealed the topics published in the global publications of brucellosis; the findings can be useful for research centers and universities in determining research priorities in the field of brucellosis.

Sub-Saharan African Countries‘ COVID-19 Research: An analysis of the External and Internal Contributions, Collaboration Patterns and Funding Sources

This study aims at providing some evidence-based insight into Sub-Saharan Africa’s first eighteen months of COVID-19 research by evaluating its research contributions, patterns of collaboration, and funding sources. Eighteen months (2020 January 1-2021 June 30) COVID-19 publication data of 46 Sub-Saharan African countries was collected from Scopus for analysis. Country of affiliation of the authors and funding agencies data was analyzed to understand country contributions, collaboration pattern and funding sources. USA (23.08%) and the UK (19.63%), the top two external contributors, collaborated with Sub-Saharan African countries about three times more than other countries. Collaborative papers between Sub-Saharan African countries - without contributions from outside the region- made up less than five per cent of the sample, whereas over 50% of the papers were written in collaboration with researchers from outside the region. Organizations that are in the USA and the UK funded 45% of all the COVID-19 research from Sub-Saharan Africa. 53.44% of all the funding from Sub-Saharan African countries came from South African organizations. This study provides evidence that pan-African COVID-19 research collaboration is low, perhaps due to poor funding and lack of institutional support within Sub-Saharan Africa. This mirrors the collaborative features of science in Sub-Saharan Africa before the COVID-19 pandemic. The high volume of international collaboration during the pandemic is a good development. There is also a strong need to forge more robust pan-African research collaboration networks, through funding from Africa’s national and regional government organizations, with the specific objective of meeting local COVID-19 and other healthcare needs.

Mapping coronavirus research: quantitative and visualization approaches

Purpose

The present study aims to measure the global research landscape on coronavirus indexed in the Web of Science from 1989 to 2020. The study examines growth rates, authorship trends, institutional productivity, collaborative networks and prominent authors, institutions and countries.

Design/methodology/approach

The research literature on coronavirus published globally and indexed in the Web of Science core collection was retrieved using the term “Coronavirus” and its related and synonymous terms (e.g. COVID-19, SARS-COV, SARS-COV-2 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus) as per the Medical List of Subject Headings. A total of 5,625 publications were retrieved; however, the study was restricted to articles only (i.e. 4,471), and other document types were excluded. Quantitative and visualization techniques were used for data analysis and interpretation. VOSViewer software was employed to map collaborative networks of authors, institutions and countries.

Findings

A total of 4,471 articles have been published on coronavirus by 99 countries of the world with the maximum contribution from the USA, followed by the People's Republic of China. The United States, China, Canada, Netherlands and Germany are the front runners in the collaborative network and form strong sub-networks with other countries as well. More than 1,000 institutions collaborate in the field of coronavirus research among 99 contributing countries. The authorship pattern shows that 97.5% of publications are contributed by authors in collaboration in which 77.5% of publications are contributed by four or more than four authors. The range between degree of collaboration (DC) varies from 0.89 in 1993 to 1 in 2000 with an average of 0.96 from 1989 to 2020. The results confirm that the coronavirus research is carried out in teamwork at the individual, institutional and global levels with high magnitude and density of collaboration. The relative growth of the literature has shown inconsistency as a decreasing trend has been observed from 2007 onwards, thereby increasing the doubling time from 4.2 in the first ten years to 17.3 in the last ten years.

Research limitations

The study is limited to the publications indexed in the Web of Science; the findings cannot be generalized across other databases.

Practical implications

The results of the study may help medical scientists to identify the progress in COVID-19 research. Besdies, it will help to identify the prolific authors, institutions and countries in the development of research.

Social implications

The current COVID-19 pandemic poses urgent and prolonged threats to the health and well-being of the population worldwide. It has not only attacked the health of the people but the economy of nations as well. Therefore, it is feasible to know the research landscape of the disease to conquer the problem.

Originality/value

The current COVID-19 pandemic poses urgent and prolonged threats to the health and well-being of the population worldwide. It has not only attacked the health of the people but also the economy of nations as well. Therefore, it is feasible to know the research landscape of the disease to conquer the problem.

Bibliometric Analysis of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 Studies from India and Connection to Sustainable Development Goals

India is ranked fifth in the world in terms of COVID-19 publications accounting for 6.7% of the total. About 60% of the COVID-19 publications in the year 2020 are from United States, China, UK, Italy, and India. We present a bibliometric analysis of the publication trends and citation structure along with the identification of major research clusters. By performing network analysis of authors, citations, institutions, keywords, and countries, we explore semantic associations by applying visualization techniques. Our study shows lead taken by the United States, China, UK, Italy, India in COVID-19 research may be attributed to the high prevalence of COVID-19 cases in those countries witnessing the first outbreak and also due to having access to COVID-19 data, access to labs for experimental trials, immediate funding, and overall support from the govt. agencies. A large number of publications and citations from India are due to co-authored publications with countries like the United States, UK, China, and Saudi Arabia. Findings show health sciences have the highest number of publications and citations, while physical sciences and social sciences and humanities counts were low. A large proportion of publications fall into the open-access category. With India as the focus, by comparing three major pandemics—SARS, MERS, COVID-19—from a bibliometrics perspective, we observe much broader involvement of authors from multiple countries for COVID-19 studies when compared to SARS and MERS. Finally, by applying bibliometric indicators, we see an increasing number of sustainable development-related studies from the COVID-19 domain, particularly concerning the topic of good health and well-being. This study allows for a deeper understanding of how the scholarly community from a populous country like India pursued research in the midst of a major pandemic which resulted in the closure of scientific institutions for an extended time.

A bibliometric analysis of pandemic and epidemic studies in economics: future agenda for COVID-19 research

With the rapid global spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers from diverse fields of study have contributed markedly in different research aspects. Considering the substantial economic significance of the pandemic at the micro and macro level throughout the world, we review the scientific publications in the discipline of Economics. To draw a broad inference, we analyze a total of 1,636 scientific publications starting from 1974, which covers the period of earlier pandemics or epidemics that have a close association with COVID-19 using bibliometric analysis. Our analysis and mapping reveal key information related to the contributors at different levels, including author, institution, country, and publication sources. Besides, we identify the historical concentration of research using scientific clustering and illustrate transformations at different times. Moreover, recognizing the underlying inadequacy of economics research, we propose several areas of future research. Our findings and suggestions are expected to act as a roadmap to potential research opportunities and notable implications for business and policymakers.

Infectious epidemics and the research output of nations: A data-driven analysis

During the last years, several infectious diseases have caused widespread nationwide epidemics that affected information seeking behaviours, people mobility, economics and research trends. Examples of these epidemics are 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic in mainland China and Hong Kong, 2014–2016 Ebola epidemic in Guinea and Sierra Leone, 2015–2016 Zika epidemic in Brazil, Colombia and Puerto Rico and the recent COVID-19 epidemic in China and other countries. In this research article, we investigate the effect of large-scale outbreaks of infectious diseases on the research productivity and landscape of nations through the analysis of the research outputs of main countries affected by SARS, Zika and Ebola epidemics as returned by Web of Science Core Collection. Despite the mobility restrictions and the limitations of work conditions due to the epidemics, we surprisingly found that the research characteristics and productivity of the countries that have excellent or moderate research traditions and communities are not affected by infectious epidemics due to their robust long-term research structures and policy. Similarly, large-scale infectious outbreaks can even boost the research productivity of countries with limited research traditions thanks to international capacity building collaborations provided by organisations and associations from leading research countries.

The nature of rapid response to COVID-19 in Latin America: an examination of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico

Purpose

The coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic mobilized the international scientific community in the search for its cure and containment. The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of the rapid response to the COVID-19 of the scientific community in selected Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico) in the period running from January to August 2020. Rapid response is reconceptualized from its original meaning in health policy, as the swift mobilization of existing scientific resources to address an emergency (DeVita et al., 2017).

Design/methodology/approach

The paper explores the rapid response of the Argentinian, Brazilian, Chilean, Colombian and Mexican scientific communities from the perspective of bibliometric and altmetric data. The authors will examine scientific publications indexed to the Web of Science (WoS) dealing with COVID-19. Besides patterns of scientific output and impact as measured by citations, the authors complement the analysis with altmetric analysis. The aim is to verify whether or not factors that explain the extent of scientific impact can also be identified with respect to the wider impact made evident by altmetric indicators (Haustein, 2016).

Findings

The authors identified a somewhat limited response of the Argentinian, Brazilian, Chilean, Colombian and Mexican scientific communities to COVID-19 in terms of quantity of publications. The authorship of publications in the topic of COVID-19 was associated with authorship of publications dealing with locally relevant diseases. Some factors appear to contribute to visibility of scientific outputs. Papers that involved wider international collaborations and authors with previous publications in arboviruses were associated with higher levels of citations. Previous work on arbovirus was also associated with higher altmetric attention. The country of origin of authors exerted a positive effect on altmetric indicators.

Research limitations/implications

A limitation in the analysis is that, due to the nature of the data source (WoS), the authors were unable to verify the career status and the productivity of the authors in the sample. Nonetheless, the results appear to suggest that there is some overlapping in authors conducting research in Arboviruses and COVID-19. Career status and productivity should be the focus of future research.

Practical implications

In the context of countries with limited scientific resources, like the ones investigated in our Latin American sample, previous efforts in the study of locally relevant diseases may contribute to the creation of an expertise that can be applied when a health emergency brings about a novel disease.

Originality/value

The originality of the paper rests on the fact that the authors identified that previous work on arbovirus contributed to the scientific visibility of publications on COVID-19.

Temporal evolution, most influential studies and sleeping beauties of the coronavirus literature

Following the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 disease, within less than 8 months, the 50 years-old scholarly literature of coronaviruses grew to nearly three times larger than its size prior to 2020. Here, temporal evolution of the coronavirus literature over the last 30 years (N = 43,769) is analysed along with its subdomain of SARS-CoV-2 articles (N = 27,460) and the subdomain of reviews and meta-analytic studies (N = 1027). The analyses are conducted through the lenses of co-citation and bibliographic coupling of documents. (1) Of the N = 1204 review and meta-analytical articles of the coronavirus literature, nearly 88% have been published and indexed during the first 8 months of 2020, marking an unprecedented attention to reviews and meta-analyses in this domain, prompted by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. (2) The subset of 2020 SARS-CoV-2 articles is bibliographically distant from the rest of this literature published prior to 2020. Individual articles of the SARS-CoV-2 segment with a bridging role between the two bodies of articles (i.e., before and after 2020) are identifiable. (3) Furthermore, the degree of bibliographic coupling within the 2020 SARS-CoV-2 cluster is much poorer compared to the cluster of articles published prior to 2020. This could, in part, be explained by the higher diversity of topics that are studied in relation to SARS-CoV-2 compared to the literature of coronaviruses published prior to the SARS-CoV-2 disease. (4) The analyses on the subset of SARS-CoV-2 literature identified studies published prior to 2020 that have now proven highly instrumental in the development of various clusters of publications linked to SARS-CoV-2. In particular, the so-called "sleeping beauties" of the coronavirus literature with an awakening in 2020 were identified, i.e., previously published studies of this literature that had remained relatively unnoticed for several years but gained sudden traction in 2020 in the wake of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. This work documents the historical development of the literature on coronaviruses as an event-driven literature and as a domain that exhibited, arguably, the most exceptional case of publication burst in the history of science. It also demonstrates how scholarly efforts undertaken during peace time or prior to a disease outbreak could suddenly play a critical role in prevention and mitigation of health disasters caused by new diseases.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-021-04036-4.

Coronavirus: An insight into global research until outbreak of COVID-19 and its implications for the future

Background

The currently prevailing global threat of COVID-19 caused the publication numbers on coronaviruses to explode. The awareness of the scientific and public community is enormous. But what about the sense of all these undertakings and what can be learned about the future for a better understanding? These questions were answered with established bibliometric analyses of the time until the avalanche of publications unfolded.

Methods

Chronological, geographical aspects of publication output on coronavirus were also evaluated under the influence of epidemiological and socio-economic parameters.

Results

The trend in publication and citation numbers shows the strong influence of the past pandemics SARS and MERS with an untypical decline afterward. Research is becoming increasingly multidisciplinary over time. The USA and China, as the countries with the highest number of publications, are being displaced by other countries in the consideration of socio-economic and epidemiological aspects, which shows the effect of regional interest in corona research. A significant correlation was found between the number of SARS cases per country and related publications, while no correlation was found for MERS cases and articles.

Conclusions

The results underline the need for sustainable and forward-looking approaches that should not end with the containment of COVID-19.

Covid-19 pandemic and the unprecedented mobilisation of scholarly efforts prompted by a health crisis: Scientometric comparisons across SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV literature

During the current century, each major coronavirus outbreak has triggered a quick and immediate surge of academic publications on its respective topic. The spike in research publications following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak, however, has been like no other. The global crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic has mobilised scientific efforts at an unprecedented scale. In less than 5 months, more than 12,000 research items and in less than seven months, more than 30,000 items were indexed, while it is projected that the number could exceed 80,000 by the end of 2020, should the current trend continues. With the health crisis affecting all aspects of life, research on Covid-19 seems to have become a focal point of interest across many academic disciplines. Here, scientometric aspects of the Covid-19 literature are analysed and contrasted with those of the two previous major coronavirus diseases, i.e., Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). The focus is on the co-occurrence of key-terms, bibliographic coupling and citation relations of journals and collaborations between countries. Interesting recurring patterns across all three literatures were discovered. All three outbreaks have commonly generated three distinct cohorts of studies: (i) studies linked to public health response and epidemic control, (ii) studies on chemical constitution of the virus; and (iii) studies related to treatment, vaccine and clinical care. While studies affiliated with category (i) seem to have been relatively earliest to emerge, they have overall received relatively smaller number of citations compared to publications the two other categories. Covid-19 studies seem to have been disseminated across a broader variety of journals and across a more diverse range of subject areas. Clear links are observed between the geographical origins of each outbreak as well as the local geographical severity of each outbreak and the magnitude of research originated from regions. Covid-19 studies also display the involvement of authors from a broader variety of countries compared to SARS and MERS. Considering the speed at which the Covid-19-related literature is accumulating, an interesting dimension that warrants further exploration could be to assess if the quality and rigour of these publications have been affected.

COVID-19 publications: Database coverage, citations, readers, tweets, news, Facebook walls, Reddit posts

The COVID-19 pandemic requires a fast response from researchers to help address biological, medical, and public health issues to minimize its impact. In this rapidly evolving context, scholars, professionals, and the public may need to identify important new studies quickly. In response, this paper assesses the coverage of scholarly databases and impact indicators during March 21, 2020 to April 18, 2020. The rapidly increasing volume of research is particularly accessible through Dimensions, and less through Scopus, the Web of Science, and PubMed. Google Scholar’s results included many false matches. A few COVID-19 papers from the 21,395 in Dimensions were already highly cited, with substantial news and social media attention. For this topic, in contrast to previous studies, there seems to be a high degree of convergence between articles shared in the social web and citation counts, at least in the short term. In particular, articles that are extensively tweeted on the day first indexed are likely to be highly read and relatively highly cited 3 weeks later. Researchers needing wide scope literature searches (rather than health-focused PubMed or medRxiv searches) should start with Dimensions (or Google Scholar) and can use tweet and Mendeley reader counts as indicators of likely importance.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Corona Pandemic in Social Sciences: A Review of Influential Aspects and Conceptual Structure

Corona pandemic has affected the whole world, and it is a highly researched area in biological sciences. As the current pandemic has affected countries socially and economically, the purpose of this bibliometric analysis is to provide a holistic review of the corona pandemic in the field of social sciences. This study aims to highlight significant, influential aspects, research streams, and themes. We have reviewed 395 journal articles related to coronavirus in the field of social sciences from 2003 to 2020. We have deployed 'biblioshiny' a web-interface of the 'bibliometrix 3.0' package of R-studio to conduct bibliometric analysis and visualization. In the field of social sciences, we have reported influential aspects of coronavirus literature. We have found that the 'Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report' is the top journal. The core article of coronavirus literature is 'Guidelines for preventing health-care-associated pneumonia'. The most commonly used word, in titles, abstracts, author's keywords, and keywords plus, is 'SARS'. Top affiliation is 'The University of Hong Kong'. Hong Kong is a leading country based on citations, and the USA is on top based on total publications. We have used a conceptual framework to identify potential research streams and themes in coronavirus literature. Four research streams are found by deploying a co-occurrence network. These research streams are 'Social and economic effects of epidemic disease', 'Infectious disease calamities and control', 'Outbreak of COVID 19,' and 'Infectious diseases and the role of international organizations'. Finally, a thematic map is used to provide a holistic understanding by dividing significant themes into basic or transversal, emerging or declining, motor, highly developed, but isolated themes. These themes and subthemes have proposed future directions and critical areas of research.

Coronavirus mapping in scientific publications: When science advances rapidly and collectively, is access to this knowledge open to society?

The COVID-19 pandemic is creating a global health emergency. Mapping this health emergency in scientific publications demands multiple approaches to obtain a picture as complete as possible. To progress in the knowledge of this pandemic and to control its effects, international collaborations between researchers are essentials, as well as having open and immediate access to scientific publications, what we called “coopetition”. Our main objectives are to identify the most productive countries in coronavirus publications, to analyse the international scientific collaboration on this topic, and to study the proportion and typology of open accessibility to these publications. We have analyzed 18,875 articles indexed in Web of Science. We performed the descriptive statistical analysis in order to explore the performance of the more prolific countries and organizations, as well as paying attention to the last 2 years. Registers have been analyzed separately via the VOSviewer software, drawing a network of links among countries and organizations to identify the starred countries and organizations, and the strongest links of the net. We have explored the capacity of researchers to generate scientific knowledge about a health crisis emergency, and their global capacity to collaborate among them in a global emergency. We consider that science is moving rapidly to find solutions to international health problems but access to this knowledge by society is not so quick due to several limitations (open access policies, corporate interests, etc.). We have observed that papers from China in the last 3 months (from January 2020 to March 2020) have a strong impact compared with papers published in years before. The United States and China are the major producers of documents of our sample, followed by all European countries, especially the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, and France. At the same time, the leading role of Saudi Arabia, Canada or South Korea should be noted, with a significant number of documents submitted but very different dynamics of international collaboration. The proportion of international collaboration is growing in all countries in 2019–2020, which contrasts with the situation of the last two decades. The organizations providing the most documents to the sample are mostly Chinese. The percentage of open access articles on coronavirus for the period 2001–2020 is 59.2% but if we focus in 2020 the figures increase up to 91.4%, due to the commitment of commercial publishers with the emergency.