How fast is the peer-review process for orthopaedic publications related to the Covid-19 pandemic?

Trends in Research on Patients With COVID-19 in Korean Medical Journals

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to systematically summarize trends in research concerning patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as reported in Korean medical journals.

METHODS

We performed a literature search of KoreaMed from January 2020 to September 2022. We included only primary studies of patients with COVID-19. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts, then performed full-text screening, both independently and in duplicate. We first identified the 5 journals with the greatest numbers of eligible publications, then extracted data pertaining to the general characteristics, study population attributes, and research features of papers published in these journals.

RESULTS

Our analysis encompassed 142 primary studies. Of these, approximately 41.0% reported a funding source, while 3.5% disclosed a conflict of interest. In 2020, 42.9% of studies included fewer than 10 participants; however, by 2022, the proportion of studies with over 200 participants had increased to 40.6%. The most common design was the cohort study (48.6%), followed by case reports/series (35.2%). Only 3 randomized controlled trials were identified. Studies most frequently focused on prognosis (58.5%), followed by therapy/intervention (20.4%). Regarding the type of intervention/exposure, therapeutic clinical interventions comprised 26.1%, while studies of morbidity accounted for 13.4%. As for the outcomes measured, 50.7% of studies assessed symptoms/clinical status/improvement, and 14.1% evaluated mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Employing a systematic approach, we examined the characteristics of research involving patients with COVID-19 that was published in Korean medical journals from 2020 onward. Subsequent research should assess not only publication trends over a longer timeframe but also the quality of evidence provided.

Orthopaedic Surgeons Should Consider Online and E-publication Resources for the Most Current Evidence-Based Medicine Following the COVID-19 Pandemic

Purpose

To compare the time to publication of accepted manuscripts and content in orthopaedic sports medicine journals during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A convenience sample of articles published in January, May, and September during the years 2019-2021 was taken from Arthroscopy, American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM), and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (KSSTA). The duration between the aspects of the article publication process was compared between journals and years.

Results

Overall, 826 journal articles were included. Arthroscopy demonstrated no significant differences in the time from manuscript submission to journal publication from 2019 to 2021, a significant decrease in time from acceptance to e-Pub (140 vs 74 vs 16 days; P < .001), but an increase from e-Pub to journal publication (23 vs 74 vs 130 days; P < .001). In AJSM, there was an overall increase in time from submission to journal publication significant between 2019 and 2021 (P = .05) and 2020 and 2021 (P = .001). KSSTA demonstrated the longest timelines in 2020. There was a trend toward a greater number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Conclusion

Changes in various aspects of the time to publication and journal content occurred in orthopaedic sports medicine journals in the years surrounding the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Although it is not possible to know whether these delays are caused by journal or author-related factors, orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the possible delay in time to publication and consider online and e-publication resources for the most current evidence-based medicine, while journals may take this information into account to consider ways of improving the publication process and when determining journal content.

Clinical Relevance

It is important to understand the impact the COVID-19 pandemic had on the publications which orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons rely on for clinical knowledge and the practice of evidence-based medicine.

Time from submission to publication in urology journals: A look at publication times before and during Covid-19

Background

The Covid-19 pandemic impacted scientific publishing, though it's effect on publication times in urology literature is unknown. The objective of our study were to determine and compare acceptance and publication times in general and specific urology journals, and to quantify these times before and during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Methods

We identified all original articles published in seven urology journals in 2019 and 2021, and extracted data on submission, acceptance, online, and in-print publication times. Differences between groups were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests.

Results

A total of 2880 articles were included, comprising 1601 articles published in 2021 and 1279 in 2019. Less experimental/animal studies were published in 2021 compared to 2019 (197 vs. 289). Time between submission and online publication was longer in 2021 (median 4.4 vs 3.3 months, p < 0.001), though acceptance times were not different (median 3.3 vs 3.3 months, p = 0.25). Prostate (median: 2.8 months, Neurourology and Urodynamics (median: 2.8 months) and Word Journal of Urology (median 2.9 months) had the shortest acceptance time in 2021. Time between submission and in-print publication ranged from 4.6 months (IQR: 3.6-6.8) for Prostate to 11.9 months (IQR: 9.8-13.2) for World Journal of Urology. Acceptance times were significantly longer in 2021 compared to 2019 for Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, Journal of Sexual Medicine, and Prostate. Moreover, time between submission and in print publication was longer in 2021 compared to 2019 for Journal of Sexual Medicine and Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, and shorter for Neurourology and Urodynamics. The median time to in print publication was lower for publications from US institutions (median 7.0 vs. 7.7 months in 2019 and 8.7 months vs 9.1 months in 2021).

Conclusions

We identified journal specific acceptance and publication times and observed substantial differences between urology journals for the years 2019 and 2021.

Time to publication for orthopaedic surgery peer-reviewed journals: A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis

Background

The dissemination of research and evidence-based medicine is critical to advancing science and improving clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the timing and associated factors of the publication process for the most influential orthopaedic surgery research journals.

Methods

After analyzing 25 orthopaedic surgery journals with the highest impact factors, 14 journals provided the necessary information for data analysis. A minimum of three consecutive issues per journal from 2021 were collected for review. Within each issue, all articles were included except for reviews, commentaries, replies, letters to the editor, and invited articles. The publication times for received to accepted (RA), received to published in press (RP1), and received to published in print (RP2) were retrieved and compared. Journal impact factor, specialty, and article level of evidence were recorded.

Results

A total of 1040 articles were included with a mean number of 74.3 ± 38 (range, 35-182) articles analyzed per journal. The mean impact factor for the 14 journals was 3.6 ± 1 (range, 2.5-5.8). The overall median duration of time for RA, RP1, and RP2 were 119 (IQR, 78-165) days, 157 (IQR, 102-216) days, and 291 (IQR, 243-378) days across all 14 journals, respectively. Journal of Arthroplasty demonstrated the shortest median duration of time for RA and RP1, while International Orthopaedics demonstrated the shortest median duration of time for RP2. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine demonstrated the longest median duration of time for RA and RP2, while the American Journal of Sports Medicine demonstrated the longest median duration of time for RP1. Level three studies, which included retrospective case-control and cohort study designs, demonstrated the shortest publication times, while sports medicine journals demonstrated the longest publication times for all periods.

Conclusion

There was substantial variation in publication times across orthopaedic surgery journals which may impact accessibility to clinical insights.

Exploring COVID-19 research papers published on journals in the field of LIS

As the COVID-19 pandemic prevails, research related to COVID-19 has spread beyond medicine, health science, and biology to almost all academic fields. Library and information science is one of the most active fields that publish COVID-19-related research papers. This study examined 696 research papers related to COVID-19 whose journal being categorized as “information science & library science” by Web of Science. The result of bibliometric analysis showed that the publications were active and on the rise. Most papers were published in English and produced in the United States. According to the keyword clustering map produced by semantic network analysis, two fields, bibliometrics and health communication, were publishing research papers related to COVID-19 most actively. Moreover, the most productive journal was a library and information science journal focusing on health informatics. Additionally, a tendency was found that researchers preferred to publish on journals with high impact factors. Compared with non-COVID-19-related research papers, there was a significant decrease of “time for acceptance” of COVID-19-related papers, and the proportion of open access was relatively high. Confronting the global crisis of COVID-19, the library and information science field also made efforts and challenges to resolve the slow peer-review, delayed publishing, and high paywalls, which have been recognized as a “chronic diseases” of the academic publishing ecosystem. It is expected that these endeavors can serve as a turning point to reconsider and innovate the traditional research-publishing lifecycle.

Covid-19 refereeing duration and impact in major medical journals

Two partly conflicting academic pressures from the seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic are the need for faster peer review of Covid-19 health-related research and greater scrutiny of its findings. This paper investigates whether decreases in peer review durations for Covid-19 articles were universal across 97 major medical journals, Nature, Science, and Cell. The results suggest that on average, Covid-19 articles submitted during 2020 were reviewed 1.7–2.1 times faster than non-Covid-19 articles submitted during 2017–2020. Nevertheless, whilst the review speed of Covid-19 research was particularly fast during the first five months (1.9–3.4 times faster) of the pandemic (January–May 2020), this speed advantage was no longer evident for articles submitted November–December 2020. Faster peer review also associates with higher citation impact for Covid-19 articles in the same journals, suggesting it did not usually compromise the scholarly impact of important Covid-19 research. Overall, then, it seems that core medical and general journals responded quickly but carefully to the pandemic, although the situation returned closer to normal within a year.

Peer Review

https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00176

The causes, impacts and countermeasures of COVID-19 "Infodemic": A systematic review using narrative synthesis

An unprecedented infodemic has been witnessed to create massive damage to human society. However, it was not thoroughly investigated. This systematic review aims to (1) synthesize the existing literature on the causes and impacts of COVID-19 infodemic; (2) summarize the proposed strategies to fight with COVID-19 infodemic; and (3) identify the directions for future research. A systematic literature search following the PRISMA guideline covering 12 scholarly databases was conducted to retrieve various types of peer-reviewed articles that reported causes, impacts, or countermeasures of the infodemic. Empirical studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. A coding theme was iteratively developed to categorize the causes, impacts, and countermeasures found from the included studies. Social media usage, low level of health/eHealth literacy, and fast publication process and preprint service are identified as the major causes of the infodemic. Besides, the vicious circle of human rumor-spreading behavior and the psychological issues from the public (e.g., anxiety, distress, fear) emerges as the characteristic of the infodemic. Comprehensive lists of countermeasures are summarized from different perspectives, among which risk communication and consumer health information need/seeking are of particular importance. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed and future research directions are suggested.

Academic Journal Retractions and the COVID-19 Pandemic

The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic has produced an unprecedented amount of scientific research, with over 100,000 articles on the SARS-COV2 virus or the associated pandemic published within the first year. To effectively disseminate such a large volume of research, some academic journal publishers altered their review criteria, and many articles were made available before undergoing a traditional review process. However, with this rapid influx of information, multiple COVID-19 articles have been retracted or withdrawn. Some researchers have expressed concern that these retractions call into question the validity of an expedited review process and the overall quality of the larger body of COVID-19 research. We examined 68 removed articles and determined that many of the articles were removed for unknown reasons (n = 22) or as duplications (n = 12); 24 papers were retracted for more significant reasons (data integrity, plagiarism, reporting or analysis, and IRB or privacy issues). The majority of removed papers were from the USA (n = 23) and China (n = 19).