COVID-19 research: pandemic versus "paperdemic", integrity, values and risks of the "speed science"

Exploring views of South African research ethics committees on pandemic preparedness and response during COVID-19

South African research ethics committees (RECs) faced significant challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research ethics committees needed to find a balance between careful consideration of scientific validity and ethical merit of protocols, and review with the urgency normally associated with public health emergency research. We aimed to explore the views of South African RECs on their pandemic preparedness and response during COVID-19. We conducted in-depth interviews with 21 participants from RECs that were actively involved in the review of COVID-19 related research, at seven academic institutions across South Africa. Interviews were conducted remotely using an in-depth interview guide that included questions regarding REC preparedness and response to COVID-19. Interviews were conducted until data saturation, and audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and coded. An inductive approach to thematic analysis was used to organise data into themes and sub-themes. This study focused on three main themes: coping during COVID-19, building REC capacity during pandemic times and a consistently cautious approach to mutual recognition of REC reviews. Despite an initial sense of unpreparedness, RECs were able to adapt and maintain careful ethical oversight of both COVID and non-COVID research, and the rigour of REC reviews. Several important lessons for preparedness and response to future pandemics were identified, including heightened awareness of publication, funding and political pressures, the importance of regular training for RECs and researchers, and strategies to enhance moral resilience of REC members. Incremental steps are needed to build trust and authentic partnerships among RECs in inter-pandemic times, to facilitate collaboration during future public health emergencies.

Efficacy of Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin in Managing COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Phase III Clinical Trials

Background: During the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic several drugs were used to manage the patients mainly those with a severe phenotype. Potential drugs were used off-label and major concerns arose from their applicability to managing the health crisis highlighting the importance of clinical trials. In this context, we described the mechanisms of the three repurposed drugs [Ivermectin-antiparasitic drug, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine-antimalarial drugs, and Azithromycin-antimicrobial drug]; and, based on this description, the study evaluated the clinical efficacy of those drugs published in clinical trials. The use of these drugs reflects the period of uncertainty that marked the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, which made them a possible treatment for COVID-19. Methods: In our review, we evaluated phase III randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that analyzed the efficacy of these drugs published from the COVID-19 pandemic onset to 2023. We included eight RCTs published for Ivermectin, 11 RCTs for Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and three RCTs for Azithromycin. The research question (PICOT) accounted for P-hospitalized patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19; I-use of oral or intravenous Ivermectin OR Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine OR Azithromycin; C-placebo or no placebo (standard of care); O-mortality OR hospitalization OR viral clearance OR need for mechanical ventilation OR clinical improvement; and T-phase III RCTs. Results: While studying these drugs' respective mechanisms of action, the reasons for which they were thought to be useful became apparent and are as follows: Ivermectin binds to insulin-like growth factor and prevents nuclear transportation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), therefore preventing cell entrance, induces apoptosis, and osmotic cell death and disrupts viral replication. Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine blocks the movement of SARS-CoV-2 from early endosomes to lysosomes inside the cell, also, this drug blocks the binding between SARS-CoV-2 and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE)-2 inhibiting the interaction between the virus spike proteins and the cell membrane and this drug can also inhibit SARS-CoV-2 viral replication causing, ultimately, the reduction in viral infection as well as the potential to progression for a higher severity phenotype culminating with a higher chance of death. Azithromycin exerts a down-regulating effect on the inflammatory cascade, attenuating the excessive production of cytokines and inducing phagocytic activity, and acts interfering with the viral replication cycle. Ivermectin, when compared to standard care or placebo, did not reduce the disease severity, need for mechanical ventilation, need for intensive care unit, or in-hospital mortality. Only one study demonstrated that Ivermectin may improve viral clearance compared to placebo. Individuals who received Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine did not present a lower incidence of death, improved clinical status, or higher chance of respiratory deterioration compared to those who received usual care or placebo. Also, some studies demonstrated that Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine resulted in worse outcomes and side-effects included severe ones. Adding Azithromycin to a standard of care did not result in clinical improvement in hospitalized COVID-19 participants. In brief, COVID-19 was one of the deadliest pandemics in modern human history. Due to the potential health catastrophe caused by SARS-CoV-2, a global effort was made to evaluate treatments for COVID-19 to attenuate its impact on the human species. Unfortunately, several countries prematurely justified the emergency use of drugs that showed only in vitro effects against SARS-CoV-2, with a dearth of evidence supporting efficacy in humans. In this context, we reviewed the mechanisms of several drugs proposed to treat COVID-19, including Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin, as well as the phase III clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of these drugs for treating patients with this respiratory disease. Conclusions: As the main finding, although Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin might have mechanistic effects against SARS-CoV-2 infection, most phase III clinical trials observed no treatment benefit in patients with COVID-19, underscoring the need for robust phase III clinical trials.

Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading

The concept of research integrity (RI) refers to a set of moral and ethical standards that serve as the foundation for the execution of research activities. Integrity in research is the incorporation of principles of honesty, transparency, and respect for ethical standards and norms throughout all stages of the research endeavor, encompassing study design, data collecting, analysis, reporting, and publishing. The preservation of RI is of utmost importance to uphold the credibility and amplify the influence of scientific research while also preventing and dealing with instances of scientific misconduct. Researchers, institutions, journals, and readers share responsibilities for preserving RI. Researchers must adhere to the highest ethical standards. Institutions have a role in establishing an atmosphere that supports integrity ideals while also providing useful guidance, instruction, and assistance to researchers. Editors and reviewers act as protectors, upholding quality and ethical standards in the dissemination of research results through publishing. Readers play a key role in the detection and reporting of fraudulent activity by critically evaluating content. The struggle against scientific misconduct has multiple dimensions and is continuous. It requires a collaborative effort and adherence to the principles of honesty, transparency, and rigorous science. By supporting a culture of RI, the scientific community may preserve its core principles and continue to contribute appropriately to society's well-being. It not only aids present research but also lays the foundation for future scientific advancements.

Research integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives of health science researchers at an Academic Health Science Center

During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, a complex mix of political pressure, social urgency, public panic, and scientific curiosity has significantly impacted the context of research and development. The goal of this study is to understand if and how researchers are shifting their practices and adjusting norms and beliefs regarding research ethics and integrity. We have conducted 31 interviews with Health Science Researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch which were then analyzed using integrated deductive and inductive coding. We categorized participant views into four main areas: 1) limitations to the research design, 2) publication, 3) duplication of studies, and 4) research pipeline. Although certain researchers were in keeping to the status quo, more were willing to modify norms to address social need and urgency. Notably, they were more likely to opt for systemic change rather than modifications within their own research practices.

The Fragility of Scientific Rigour and Integrity in "Sped up Science": Research Misconduct, Bias, and Hype and in the COVID-19 Pandemic

During the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic, preclinical and clinical research were sped up and scaled up in both the public and private sectors and in partnerships between them. This resulted in some extraordinary advances, but it also raised a range of issues regarding the ethics, rigour, and integrity of scientific research, academic publication, and public communication. Many of the failures of scientific rigour and integrity that occurred during the pandemic were exacerbated by the rush to generate, disseminate, and implement research findings, which not only created opportunities for unscrupulous actors but also compromised the methodological, peer review, and advisory processes that would usually identify sub-standard research and prevent compromised clinical or policy-level decisions. While it would be tempting to attribute these failures of science and its translation solely to the "unprecedented" circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the reality is that they preceded the pandemic and will continue to arise once it is over. Existing strategies for promoting scientific rigour and integrity need to be made more rigorous, better integrated into research training and institutional cultures, and made more sophisticated. They might also need to be modified or supplemented with other strategies that are fit for purpose not only in public health emergencies but in any research that is sped-up and scaled up to address urgent unmet medical needs.

Addressing conflicts of interest regarding the vaccine in infectious disease outbreaks based on good governance for health approach: a policy brief

BACKGROUND

Infectious disease outbreaks pose a significant threat to public health, and achieving herd immunity highlights the importance of addressing conflicts of interest (COI) in vaccine development and policy-making. This policy brief aims to present policy options that address COI regarding vaccines in infectious disease outbreaks, based on good governance for health approach.

METHODS

Our study used a scoping review methodology. We conducted a systematic search, which led to identifying 43 eligible articles. A qualitative approach (i.e., content analysis) was employed for data analysis, using "ATLAS.ti 9" software. The primary results underwent a process of cleaning, categorisation, and subsequent discussion in three sessions with the research team.

RESULTS

Relationships between theindustry and "government/policymakers" as well as "academic institutions/researchers" are prominent origins of COI regarding the vaccine in infectious disease outbreaks. To address this issue, we present nine policy options that target both the root cause of the problem and the adoption of good governance for health approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The key principles of good governance for health, including, "Transparency", "The Rule of Law", "Effectiveness", "Efficiency", "Participation", "Consensus Orientation", "Equality", "Responsibility", "Responsiveness" and "Accountability" must be taken into account when formulating policy options to address COI regarding the vaccine in infectious disease outbreaks. The effectiveness of the policy options outlined in this policy brief should be assessed in practical contexts, as this evaluation may uncover the need for revisions.

Comparing the prevalence of statistical reporting inconsistencies in COVID-19 preprints and matched controls: a registered report

The COVID-19 outbreak has led to an exponential increase of publications and preprints about the virus, its causes, consequences, and possible cures. COVID-19 research has been conducted under high time pressure and has been subject to financial and societal interests. Doing research under such pressure may influence the scrutiny with which researchers perform and write up their studies. Either researchers become more diligent, because of the high-stakes nature of the research, or the time pressure may lead to cutting corners and lower quality output. In this study, we conducted a natural experiment to compare the prevalence of incorrectly reported statistics in a stratified random sample of COVID-19 preprints and a matched sample of non-COVID-19 preprints. Our results show that the overall prevalence of incorrectly reported statistics is 9-10%, but frequentist as well as Bayesian hypothesis tests show no difference in the number of statistical inconsistencies between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 preprints. In conclusion, the literature suggests that COVID-19 research may on average have more methodological problems than non-COVID-19 research, but our results show that there is no difference in the statistical reporting quality.

Was retrospective change measurement conducted with Covid-19 containment inconsistent? Comparing prospective and retrospective change measures using data from a national survey on substance use and addictive behaviors

Single-measurement-point data collection to assess change has increased with studies assessing the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and of its containment, despite evidence of its lack of validity. Retrospective change is not equivalent to change in repeated self-reported measures giving raise to questions about the validity of the former. This paper purports to investigate inconsistencies between change measures by confronting retrospective change to information from longitudinally self-reported measures from the C-SURF cohort study. The study sample consists of 2,279 young men who participated in C-SURF between 2020 and 2021, and completed between May and June 2021 a survey covering change in alcohol, cigarette, cannabis and other addictive behaviors related to the pandemic. The aforementioned behaviors were assessed longitudinally at two time points using self-reports, and retrospective change since the onset of the Covid-19 crisis was also assessed at the second measurement time. Information from both prospective and retrospective change measures were confronted to identify inconsistent information for each behavior. Additionally, multiple logistic regressions were performed to assess associations between socioeconomic status, impulsivity, depression, and different indicators of motivation to complete the study and inconsistency between both measures for each behavior of interest. Importantly, inconsistent information in at least one of the investigated behaviors was found in about 90% of the participants. Small associations were found between inconsistency and different factors with a consistent effect of impulsivity. In the absence of evidence of the validity of retrospective change measures, studies relying on retrospective change should be interpreted with caution.

Applying the good publication practice 2022 guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region: a practical guide

OBJECTIVE

The Asia-Pacific region (APAC) represents a unique environment for the publication of biomedical research, particularly industry-funded research. Awareness and adoption of international guidelines on ethical publication practices continues to increase across APAC, but the reframing and expansion of many of the recommendations in the Good Publication Practice (GPP) 2022 guidelines versus GPP3 published in 2015 have important implications for publishing industry-funded biomedical research in the region.

METHODS

This manuscript provides practical guidance for stakeholders in APAC on interpreting and applying the recommendations made in the GPP 2022 guidelines.

RESULTS

Key focus areas include navigating new opportunities for communicating industry-funded research, such as plain language summaries, social media, and preprints; implementing formal processes to improve the integrity of published research in APAC; and methods of promoting transparency and inclusion when publishing industry-funded research. Key APAC-specific issues, including encore presentations, leadership on publication ethics in the region, access to professional resources, and support for educating regional stakeholders are also discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this manuscript offers a pragmatic guide for stakeholders in industry-sponsored research on applying GPP 2022 in practice with a focus on effectively integrating these guidelines in an APAC context.

Research integrity guidelines and safeguards in Brazil

Brazilian research output has been growing annually, and so have its domestic and international research collaborations. Accordingly, it is essential to harmonize research integrity guidance and regulations to ensure research quality. Therefore, this study aims to collect and analyze guidance documents on research integrity from Brazilian research performing organizations (RPO). Research integrity guidance documents, regulations, and policies were retrieved from 60 randomly selected universities in Brazil. The search was conducted via the universities' websites and confirmed by e-mail. The documents were analyzed based on inductive content analysis. Relevant documents from 20 RPOs were identified. 28% of the included institutions have developed their own guidelines or adopted some guidance document on research integrity. Best practices, misconduct and misbehaviors, principles, and institutional policies regarding sanctions differ between universities. The RPOs where research integrity guidance documents could be identified are concentrated mainly in the southeastern and southern areas. The number and distribution heterogeneity highlights the need to increase awareness and create regulatory documents on research integrity in Brazilian universities. Further Research Performing and Funding Organizations' initiatives are needed to foster research integrity in Brazil and harmonize it with international standards.

A multimethod synthesis of Covid-19 education research: the tightrope between covidization and meaningfulness

This study offers a comprehensive analysis of COVID-19 research in education. A multi-methods approach was used to capture the full breadth of educational research. As such, a bibliometric analysis, structural topic modeling, and qualitative synthesis of top papers were combined. A total of 4,201 articles were retrieved from Scopus, mostly published from 2019 to 2021. In this work special attention is paid to analyzing and synthesizing findings about: (i) status of research about COVID-19 regarding frequencies, venues, publishing countries, (ii) identification of main topics in the COVID-19 research, and (iii) identification of the major themes in most cited articles and their impact on the educational community. Structural topic modeling identified three main groups of topics that related to education in general, moving to online education, or diverse topics (e.g., perceptions, inclusion, medical education, engagement and motivation, well-being, and equality). A deeper analysis of the papers that received most attention revealed that problem understanding was the dominating theme of papers, followed by challenges, impact, guidance, online migration, and tools and resources. A vast number of papers were produced. However, thoughtful, well-planned, and meaningful research was hard to conceptualize or implement, and a sense of urgency led to a deluge of research with thin contributions in a time of dire need to genuine insights.

Another implementation science is possible: engaging an 'intelligent public' in knowledge translation

As the world contends with the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific expertise has permeated political discourse and the phrase 'following the science' is being used to build trust and justify government decision-making. This phrase reflects a problematic assumption that there is one objective science to follow and that the use of scientific knowledge in decision-making is inherently neutral. In this article, we examine more closely the dense and intricate relationships, values, politics, and interests that determine whose knowledge counts, who gets to speak, who is spoken for, and with what consequences, in the translation of scientific knowledge. Drawing key insights from Stengers' Manifesto for Slow Science, we argue that implementation science has a central role to play in problematising the historic dominance of certain voices and institutional structures that have come to symbolise trust, rigour, and knowledge. Yet to date, implementation science has tended to overlook these economic, social, historical, and political forces. Fraser's conception of social justice and Jasanoff's 'technologies of humility' are introduced as useful frameworks to extend the capacity of implementation science to engage the broader public as an 'intelligent public' in the translation of knowledge, during and beyond the pandemic.

Retracted Covid-19 articles: significantly more cited than other articles within their journal of origin

With the expansion of research volume, coinciding with the age of the internet, the retraction of published papers from scientific journals has become crucial to preserving scientific integrity. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, both public and professional interest in scientific literature has grown as people attempt to educate themselves on the virus. The Retraction Watch Database COVID-19 blog was accessed in June and November of 2022 and analyzed to ensure articles met inclusion criteria. Articles were then accessed on Google Scholar and the Scopus database to find number of citations and SJR/CiteScore. The average SJR and CiteScore for a journal that published one of the articles was 1.531 and 7.3 respectively. The retracted articles were cited an average of 44.8 times, which was significantly higher than the average CiteScore (p = 0.01). Between June and November, retracted COVID-19 articles gained a total of 728 new citations, presence of "withdrawn" or "retracted" before article title did not affect citation rates. COPE guidelines for retraction statements were not met for 32% of articles. We believe retracted COVID-19 publications may have been more likely to include bold claims that garnered a disproportionately high amount of attention within the scientific community. Additionally, we found many journals were not forthright with explanations for why articles had been retracted. Retractions could be a tool used to add to the scientific discourse, but currently we are only getting half the data, the what and not the why.

Coronavirus Host Genomics Study: South Africa (COVIGen-SA)

Host genetic factors are known to modify the susceptibility, severity, and outcomes of COVID-19 and vary across populations. However, continental Africans are yet to be adequately represented in such studies despite the importance of genetic factors in understanding Africa's response to the pandemic. We describe the development of a research resource for coronavirus host genomics studies in South Africa known as COVIGen-SA-a multicollaborator strategic partnership designed to provide harmonised demographic, clinical, and genetic information specific to Black South Africans with COVID-19. Over 2,000 participants have been recruited to date. Preliminary results on 1,354 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants from four participating studies showed that 64.7% were female, 333 had severe disease, and 329 were people living with HIV. Through this resource, we aim to provide insights into host genetic factors relevant to African-ancestry populations, using both genome-wide association testing and targeted sequencing of important genomic loci. This project will promote and enhance partnerships, build skills, and develop resources needed to address the COVID-19 burden and associated risk factors in South African communities.

A guide to open science practices for animal research

Translational biomedical research relies on animal experiments and provides the underlying proof of practice for clinical trials, which places an increased duty of care on translational researchers to derive the maximum possible output from every experiment performed. The implementation of open science practices has the potential to initiate a change in research culture that could improve the transparency and quality of translational research in general, as well as increasing the audience and scientific reach of published research. However, open science has become a buzzword in the scientific community that can often miss mark when it comes to practical implementation. In this Essay, we provide a guide to open science practices that can be applied throughout the research process, from study design, through data collection and analysis, to publication and dissemination, to help scientists improve the transparency and quality of their work. As open science practices continue to evolve, we also provide an online toolbox of resources that we will update continually.

Open science has become a buzzword in the scientific community that too often misses the practical application for individual researchers. This Essay, provides a guide to choosing the most appropriate tools to make animal research more transparent.

Forecasting the publication and citation outcomes of COVID-19 preprints

Many publications on COVID-19 were released on preprint servers such as medRxiv and bioRxiv. It is unknown how reliable these preprints are, and which ones will eventually be published in scientific journals. In this study, we use crowdsourced human forecasts to predict publication outcomes and future citation counts for a sample of 400 preprints with high Altmetric score. Most of these preprints were published within 1 year of upload on a preprint server (70%), with a considerable fraction (45%) appearing in a high-impact journal with a journal impact factor of at least 10. On average, the preprints received 162 citations within the first year. We found that forecasters can predict if preprints will be published after 1 year and if the publishing journal has high impact. Forecasts are also informative with respect to Google Scholar citations within 1 year of upload on a preprint server. For both types of assessment, we found statistically significant positive correlations between forecasts and observed outcomes. While the forecasts can help to provide a preliminary assessment of preprints at a faster pace than traditional peer-review, it remains to be investigated if such an assessment is suited to identify methodological problems in preprints.

A meta-review of psychological resilience during COVID-19

Psychological resilience has emerged as a key factor in mental health during the global COVID-19 pandemic. However, no work to date has synthesised findings across review work or assessed the reliability of findings based on review work quality, so as to inform public health policy. We thus conducted a meta-review on all types of review work from the start of the pandemic (January 2020) until the last search date (June 2021). Of an initial 281 papers, 30 were included for review characteristic reporting and 15 were of sufficient review quality for further inclusion in strategy analyses. High-level strategies were identified at the individual, community, organisational, and governmental levels. Several specific training and/or intervention programmes were also identified. However, the quality of findings was insufficient for drawing conclusions. A major gap between measuring the psychological resilience of populations and evaluating the effectiveness of strategies for those populations was revealed. More empirical work, especially randomised controlled trials with diverse populations and rigorous analyses, is strongly recommended for future research.

Publication practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: Expedited publishing or simply an early bird effect?

This study explores the evolution of publication practices associated with the SARS-CoV-2 research papers, namely, peer-reviewed journal and review articles indexed in PubMed and their associated preprints posted on bioRxiv and medRxiv servers: a total of 4,031 journal article-preprint pairs. Our assessment of various publication delays during the January 2020 to March 2021 period revealed the early bird effect that lies beyond the involvement of any publisher policy action and is directly linked to the emerging nature of new and 'hot' scientific topics. We found that when the early bird effect and data incompleteness are taken into account, COVID-19 related research papers show only a moderately expedited speed of dissemination as compared with the pre-pandemic era. Medians for peer-review and production stage delays were 66 and 15 days, respectively, and the entire conversion process from a preprint to its peer-reviewed journal article version took 109.5 days. The early bird effect produced an ephemeral perception of a global rush in scientific publishing during the early days of the coronavirus pandemic. We emphasize the importance of considering the early bird effect in interpreting publication data collected at the outset of a newly emerging event.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perceived publication pressure among academic researchers in Canada

The phenomenon of “publish-or-perish” in academia, spurred on by limited funding and academic positions, has led to increased competition and pressure on academics to publish. Publication pressure has been linked with multiple negative outcomes, including increased academic misconduct and researcher burnout. COVID-19 has disrupted research worldwide, leading to lost research time and increased anxiety amongst researchers. The objective of this study was to examine how COVID-19 has impacted perceived publication pressure amongst academic researchers in Canada. We used the revised Publication Pressure Questionnaire, in addition to Likert-type questions to discern respondents’ beliefs and concerns about the impact of COVID-19 on academic publishing. We found that publication pressure increased across academic researchers in Canada following the pandemic, with respondents reporting increased stress, increased pessimism, and decreased access to support related to publishing. Doctoral students reported the highest levels of stress and pessimism, while principal investigators had the most access to publication support. There were no significant differences in publication pressure reported between different research disciplines. Women and non-binary or genderfluid respondents reported higher stress and pessimism than men. We also identified differences in perceived publication pressure based on respondents’ publication frequency and other demographic factors, including disability and citizenship status. Overall, we document a snapshot of perceived publication pressure in Canada across researchers of different academic career stages and disciplines. This information can be used to guide the creation of researcher supports, as well as identify groups of researchers who may benefit from targeted resources.

Between panic and motivation: did the first wave of COVID-19 affect scientific publishing in Mediterranean countries?

Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic that began in the winter of 2020, all communities and activities globally have been positively or negatively affected. This scientometric study raises an interesting question concerning whether the volume and characteristics of scientific publishing in all disciplines in 23 Mediterranean countries have been impacted by the pandemic and whether variations in the cumulative totals of COVID-19 cases have resulted in significant changes in this context. The Scopus database and SciVal tool supplied the necessary data for the years targeted for comparison (2019 and 2020), and the annual growth rates and differences were computed. The study used the Mann-Whitney test to examine the significance of the differences between the two years and the Spearman and Kendall correlation tests to evaluate the effect of the number of infections on these differences for all aspects of scientific performance. The findings demonstrated that the COVID-19 pandemic served as a powerful incentive, and the Mediterranean region experienced considerable differences in the volume and features of publications during this crisis. The most substantial implications were the significant growth from 3.1 to 9.4% in productivity and the increases in the annual growth rates of international collaboration, by 12% for the collaboration among Mediterranean countries and 10% for collaboration with the top ten epidemic countries. It was also proven that some characteristics of the publications were positively correlated with the total number of infections. This investigation can help university leaders and decision-makers in higher education and research institutions in these countries make decisions and implement measures to bridge the gaps and motivate researchers in all fields to conduct more research during this ongoing pandemic.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-022-04391-w.

Diabetes care and prevention services provided by pharmacists: Progress made during the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for additional efforts in the post-pandemic era

Diabetes is a challenging metabolic disease that significantly impacts people's health worldwide. It requires a comprehensive approach for better prevention and control, especially during challenging times such as the recent pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has altered how health care professionals, including pharmacists, provide health care. With the widespread use of virtual and online platforms for service delivery, pharmacist-led diabetes care has been transformed to meet the needs of patients during the pandemic. This article aims to discuss examples of pharmacist-led diabetes care services during the pandemic and highlight areas where additional pharmacist efforts are needed in the post-pandemic era.

Scientific publication speed and retractions of COVID-19 pandemic original articles

Objective.

To describe the editorial processing time of published COVID-19 research articles and compare this with a similar topic, human influenza, and analyze the number of publications, withdrawals, and retractions.

Methods.

A descriptive-analytical study using PubMed on research articles with the MeSH terms human influenza and COVID-19. Time to acceptance (from submission to acceptance) and time to publication (from acceptance to publication) were compared. Retractions and withdrawals were reviewed both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Results.

There were 31 319 research articles on COVID-19 and 4 287 on human influenza published during 2020. The median time to acceptance for COVID-19 was lower than that for human influenza (8 vs. 92 days). The median time to publication for COVID-19 articles was shorter than those on human influenza (12 vs. 16 days); 47.0% of COVID-19 research articles were accepted within the first week of submission, and 19.5% within one day. There were 82 retractions and withdrawals for COVID-19 articles, 1 for human influenza, and 5 for articles that contain both terms; these were mainly related to ethical misconduct, and 27 (31.0%) were published by the same group of authors in one highest-quartile journal.

Conclusions.

The conundrum between fast publishing and adequate standards is shown in this analysis of COVID-19 research articles. The speed of acceptance for COVID-19 manuscripts was 11.5 times faster than for human influenza. The high number of acceptances within a day or week of submission and the number of retractions and withdrawals of COVID-19 papers might be a warning sign about the possible lack of a quality control process in scientific publishing and the peer review process.

How the COVID-19 pandemic impacts social scientific research on sustainability: questions of methodology, ethics and justice: comment on Santana et al. 2021

In a highly relevant contribution, Santana et al. (2021) outlined the challenges for qualitative enquiries during the pandemic. We agree that overcoming these challenges is very important since qualitative research is vital for understanding both the impacts of COVID-19 on human communities around the globe and its significance for sustainable futures. However, we argue that a more fundamental approach is needed to address problems within scientific organisations, thinking and practices that directly affect qualitative research capabilities. In this comment, we focus on justice, research organisation, the ways social scientists position themselves and changed understandings of social worlds.

Tools for public health policy: nudges and boosts as active support of the law in special situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic

In recent years, "nudging" has become a standard behavioral intervention at the individual level and for the design of social policies. Although nudges are effective, such interventions seem to be limited to a given space and time, and there is only scant evidence to support the contrary view. On the other hand, choice architects may utilize another type of intervention called "boosting," which shows the promise of generalized and lasting behavioral change. A government can use these tools to shape public policy. Behavioral interventions such as policy-making tools have their boundaries, as does the law. We argue that nudging and boosting may serve as active local or global aids in support of the legal system under certain circumstances. Nudging and boosting can also support the legal system, especially in relation to emerging social issues or events that are unprecedented, such as the recent global COVID-19 pandemic, where certain behavioral patterns are expected, but it would be difficult or impossible to enforce them through the law alone.

How did COVID-19 affect medical and cardiology journals? A pandemic in literature

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The spreading speed of the COVID-19 pandemic forced the medical community to produce efforts in updating and sharing the evidence about this new disease, trying to preserve the accuracy of the data but at the same time avoiding the potentially harmful delay from discovery to implementation. The aim of our analysis was to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical literature in terms of proportion of COVID-19-related published papers and temporal patterns of publications within a sample of general/internal medicine and cardiology journals.

METHODS

We searched through PubMed scientific papers published from 1 January 2020 to 31 January 2021 about COVID-19 in ten major medical journals, of which five were in general/internal medicine and five in the cardiology field. We analyzed the proportion of COVID-19-related papers, and we examined temporal trends in the number of published papers.

RESULTS

Overall, the proportion of COVID-19-related papers was 18.5% (1986/10 756). This proportion was higher among the five selected general/internal medicine journals, compared with cardiology journals (23.8% vs 9.5%). The vast majority of papers were not original articles; in particular, in cardiology journals, there were 28% 'original articles', 17% 'review articles' and 55.1% 'miscellaneous', compared with 20.2%, 5.1% and 74.7% in general/internal medicine journals, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis highlights the big impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on international scientific literature. General and internal medicine journals were mainly involved, with cardiology journals only at a later time.

Rethinking Fake News: Disinformation and Ideology during the time of COVID-19 Global Pandemic

Digital media and citizen journalism has escalated the infiltration of fake news attempting to create a post truth society (Lazer et al., 2018). The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a surge of misinformation leading to anti-mask, anti-vaccine and anti-5G protests on a global scale. Although the term ‘misinformation’ has been generalized in media and scholarly work, there is a fundamental difference between how misinformation impacts society, compared to more strategically planned disinformation attacks. In this study we explore the ideological constructs of citizens towards acceptance or rejection of disinformation during the heightened time of a COVID-19 global health crisis. Our analysis follows two specific disinformation propagandas evaluated through social network analysis of Twitter data in addition to qualitative insights generated from tweets and in-depth interviews.

Research integrity in times of pandemic

In 1994, Douglas Graham Altman, one of the greatest statisticians of all time, wrote "We need less research, better research, and research done for good reasons". Twenty-seven years ago, Altman pointed out that the system favored unscientific behavior and that "bad science" was easy to publish, highlighting the financial implications of this amount of poorly designed research, with erroneous statistical methods, unrepresentative samples, or fraud. The covid-19 pandemic has once again put clinical research in check. The pressure for urgent responses was unprecedented. Knowledge of the origin of the virus, the transmission dynamics, the pathophysiology of the disease, efficient pharmacological and non-pharmacological measures would be counted in lives - and economies, and in governments.

Reflecting on the COVID-19 Surgical Literature Surge: A Scoping Review of Pandemic Otolaryngology Publications

OBJECTIVE

To assess the high-volume 2020 COVID-19-related surgical literature, with special attention to otolaryngology articles in regard to content, level of evidence, citations, and public attention.

STUDY DESIGN

A scoping literature review was performed with PubMed and Web of Science, including articles pertaining to COVID-19 and surgical specialties (March 20-May 19, 2020) or otolaryngologic subspecialties (March 20-December 31, 2020).

SETTING

Scoping literature review.

METHODS

Otolaryngology-specific COVID-19-related articles were reviewed for publication date, county of origin, subspecialty, content, level of evidence, and Altmetric Attention Score (a weighted approximation of online attention received). Data were analyzed with Pearson correlation coefficients, analysis of variance, independent t tests, and univariable and logistic regressions.

RESULTS

This review included 773 early COVID-19 surgical articles and 907 otolaryngology-specific COVID-19-related articles from 2020. Otolaryngology was the most represented surgical specialty within the early COVID-19-related surgical literature (30.4%). The otolaryngology-specific COVID-19 surgical literature responsively reflects the unique concerns within each otolaryngologic subspecialty. Although this literature was largely based on expert opinion (64.5%), articles with stronger levels of evidence received significantly more citations (on Web of Science and Google Scholar, P < .001 for both) and public attention (according to Altmetric Attention Scores, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Despite concerns of a surge in underrefereed publications during the COVID-19 pandemic, our review of the surgical literature offers some degree of reassurance. Specifically, the COVID-19 otolaryngology literature responsively reflects the unique concerns and needs of the field, and more scholarly citations and greater online attention have been given to articles offering stronger levels of scientific evidence.

COVID-19 and hospitality and tourism research: An integrative review

COVID-19 caused a shockwave in all facets of the contemporary tourism industry, triggering a surge in relevant research. Responding to the sheer magnitude of the event, and the plethora of research opportunities, scholars have been investigating the pandemic from an array of perspectives, at both a micro and macro level. With the aim of advancing the existing conceptual capital, this study uses a systematic integrative review to summarize, critique and synthesize the COVID-19-related studies published in hospitality and tourism journals; it identifies important gaps and highlights a future research agenda. We select 362 articles relevant to our analysis and conduct our research using VOSviewer visualization software. Findings, of particular interest and importance to scholars, illuminate thematic areas that may stimulate further research endeavors.

Psychological resilience during COVID-19: a meta-review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The global COVID-19 pandemic continues to have wide-ranging implications for health, including psychological well-being. A growing corpus of research reviews has emerged on the topic of psychological resilience in the context of the pandemic. However, this body of work has not been systematically reviewed for its quality, nor with respect to findings on the effectiveness of tools and strategies for psychological resilience. To this end, a meta-review protocol is proposed with the following objectives: (1) identify review work on the topic of psychological resilience during COVID-19; (2) assess the quality of this review work using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; (3) assess the risk of bias in this work; (4) generate a narrative summary of the key points, strengths and weaknesses; (5) identify the psychological resilience strategies that have been reviewed; (6) identify how these strategies have been evaluated for their effectiveness; (7) identify what outcomes were measured and (8) summarise the findings on strategies for psychological resilience so far, providing recommendations, if possible.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic meta-review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews for Protocols and Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review guidelines. Electronic searches of general databases, especially Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed, will be conducted. Only results from January 2020 onwards will be considered, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. Only results in English will be included. Descriptive statistics, thematic analysis and narrative summaries describing the nature of the reviewed work and evaluation of psychological resilience strategies will be carried out.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not needed for systematic review protocols. The results of the meta-review will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. The raw and summarised data will be shared in the journal or other open venues.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021235288.

Reflecting on Responsible Conduct of Research: A Self Study of a Research-Oriented University Community

Research-oriented universities are known for prolific research activity that is often supported by students in faculty-guided research. To maintain ethical standards, universities require on-going training of both faculty and students to ensure Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). However, previous research has indicated RCR-based training is insufficient to address the ethical dilemmas that are prevalent within academic settings: navigating issues of authorship, modeling relationships between faculty and students, minimization of risk, and adequate informed consent. U.S. universities must explore ways to identify and improve RCR concerns for current (faculty) and future researchers (students). This article reports the findings of a self-study (N = 50) of research stakeholders (students and faculty) at a top tier research institution. First, we report on their perceived importance of applying RCR principles. Second, we explore relationships between stakeholder backgrounds (e.g., prior training, field, and position) and how they ranked the degree of ethical concerns in fictitious vignettes that presented different unethical issues university students could encounter when conducting research. Vignette rankings suggested concerns of inappropriate relationships, predatory authorship and IRB violations which were judged as most unethical, which was dissimilar to what sampled researchers reported in practice as the most important RCR elements to understand and adhere to for successful research. Regression models indicated there was no significant relationship between individuals’ vignette ethics scores and backgrounds, affirming previous literature suggesting that training can be ineffectual in shifting researcher judgments of ethical dilemmas. Recommendations for training are discussed.

Clinical Research Redirection and Optimization During a Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has seen many hurdles to crucial research processes, in particular those that depend on personnel interactions, in providing safeguards against the incipient infectious disease. At the same time, there was a rapid redirection of research, driven by popular and social media and demand for pandemic-related content, to the detriment of non-COVID-19 research and perhaps to COVID-19 research itself. This article provides historical context to research redirection and discusses approaches to optimizing research methodology in the setting of COVID-19 pandemic.

Practicing Social Isolation During a Pandemic in Brazil: A Description of Psychosocial Characteristics and Traits of Personality During COVID-19 Lockout

The experience of the pandemic caused by the Coronavirus and the consequent disease triggered by it (COVID-19) brought to light fragilities that have been long overlooked by the scientific community and by various political and social institutions. The pandemic also brought to the fore certain social practices resulting from individual behaviors, such as wearing a mask and practicing social isolation. It demonstrated the need for social commitment and pro-social behaviors if societies are to respond successfully. The purpose of this article is to evaluate psychological and sociodemographic characteristics associated with compliance or noncompliance of individuals with these practices in two different phases of the pandemic experience in Brazil: in the first month and after three months. Participants for the first phase of the study were recruited through advertisements in the media and social networks. 1,914 individuals aged between 14 and 81 years agreed to participate, 78.2% of these were women, from 25 Federative Units in Brazil. In the second phase, 761 individuals who participated in the first phase, were reassessed. The authors used the following instruments for data collection: a standardized questionnaire collecting information of sociodemographic characteristics and dynamics of social isolation; the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale; the Life Satisfaction Scale; the Positive and Negative Affections Scale; and the Reduced Personality Markers and Stress Mindset Scale. All instruments used presented evidence of validity and adequate reliability indexes. The comparison of categorical exploratory variables with motives for following social isolation protocols was performed using Pearson's Chi-square, and the comparison of continuous exploratory variables was performed using the Mann-Whitney test. Covariance Analysis was performed using as covariates those that showed significance/effect on isolation in previous analyses. The results showed that respondents practicing social isolation to comply with governmental recommendations had lower scores on the scales of neuroticism and conscientiousness. They reported also less stress, anxiety, and depression, and less general distress. Overall, these respondents also displayed more positive affect, and tended to reframe stress in a more positive way than others. These preliminary results describe the psychological characteristics of individuals and their associations with social behaviors in a period of collective stress and high social risk.

WHO guidance on ethics in outbreaks and the COVID-19 pandemic: a critical appraisal

In 2016, following pandemic influenza threats and the 2014-2016 Ebola virus disease outbreaks, the WHO developed a guidance document for managing ethical issues in infectious disease outbreaks. In this article, we analyse some ethical issues that have had a predominant role in decision making in response to the current COVID-19 pandemic but were absent or not addressed in the same ways in the 2016 guidance document. A pandemic results in a health crisis and social and political crises both nationally and globally. The ethical implications of these global effects should be properly identified so that appropriate actions can be taken globally and not just in national isolation. Our analysis, which is a starting point to test the broader relevance of the 2016 WHO document that remains the only available guidance document applicable globally, concludes that the WHO guidance should be updated to provide reasoned and thoughtful comprehensive ethics advice for the sound management of the current and future pandemics.

Ethical Challenges Related to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak: Interviews With Professionals From Saudi Arabia

The new and dangerous coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has posed a serious challenge to the ability of healthcare systems of many countries to contain the spread of the disease and to mitigate its various consequences. The disease posed many ethical challenges both in itself and in the methods used in its management. Although the ethical principles that healthcare operates under are universal, a thorough understanding of the ethical difficulties it poses necessitates consideration of contextual, societal, and cultural factors. This study provides an in-depth exploration of the ethical challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak in relation to healthcare providers, medical researchers, and decision-makers in Saudi Arabia. Four themes were extracted from participants' responses, namely, ethical challenges about disease-control measures, challenges to actions in certain groups, challenges regarding software programs, and finally ethics in research practices. Each theme likewise contained sub-themes. The themes and sub-themes were discussed in light of the ethical principles: autonomy, beneficence, non-beneficence, and justice, as well as other principles, such as protecting confidentiality, privacy, and preventing stigma and discrimination.

When peril responds to plague: predatory journal engagement with COVID-19

Purpose

The academic community has warned that predatory journals may attempt to capitalize on the confusion caused by the COVID-19 pandemic to further publish low quality academic work, eroding the credibility of scholarly publishing.

Design/methodology/approach

This article first chronicles the risks of predatory publishing, especially related to misinformation surrounding health research. Next, the author offers an empirical investigation of how predatory publishing has engaged with COVID-19, with an emphasis on journals related to virology, immunology and epidemiology as identified through Cabells' Predatory Reports, through a content analysis of publishers' websites and a comparison to a sample from DOAJ.

Findings

The empirical findings show that there were 162 titles related to these critical areas from journals listed on Cabells with a range of infractions, but most were defunct and only 39 had published on the pandemic. Compared to a DOAJ comparison group, the predatory journal websites were less likely to mention slowdowns to the peer review process related to the pandemic. Furthermore, another 284 predatory journals with COVID-19 engagement were uncovered from the initial exploration. These uncovered journals mostly centered on medical or biological science fields, while 42 titles came from other broader fields in social science, other STEM or humanities.

Originality/value

This study does not prove that predatory publications have released misinformation pertaining to COVID-19, but rather it exemplifies the potential within a complex academic publishing space. As these outlets have proven to be vectors of misleading science, libraries and the broader educational community need to stay vigilant as information intermediaries of online research.

Publication rate and citation counts for preprints released during the COVID-19 pandemic: the good, the bad and the ugly

Background

Preprints are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. In December 2019, a novel coronavirus appeared in China, and since then, scientific production, including preprints, has drastically increased. In this study, we intend to evaluate how often preprints about COVID-19 were published in scholarly journals and cited.

Methods

We searched the iSearch COVID-19 portfolio to identify all preprints related to COVID-19 posted on bioRxiv, medRxiv, and Research Square from January 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. We used a custom-designed program to obtain metadata using the Crossref public API. After that, we determined the publication rate and made comparisons based on citation counts using non-parametric methods. Also, we compared the publication rate, citation counts, and time interval from posting on a preprint server to publication in a scholarly journal among the three different preprint servers.

Results

Our sample included 5,061 preprints, out of which 288 were published in scholarly journals and 4,773 remained unpublished (publication rate of 5.7%). We found that articles published in scholarly journals had a significantly higher total citation count than unpublished preprints within our sample (p < 0.001), and that preprints that were eventually published had a higher citation count as preprints when compared to unpublished preprints (p < 0.001). As well, we found that published preprints had a significantly higher citation count after publication in a scholarly journal compared to as a preprint (p < 0.001). Our results also show that medRxiv had the highest publication rate, while bioRxiv had the highest citation count and shortest time interval from posting on a preprint server to publication in a scholarly journal.

Conclusions

We found a remarkably low publication rate for preprints within our sample, despite accelerated time to publication by multiple scholarly journals. These findings could be partially attributed to the unprecedented surge in scientific production observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which might saturate reviewing and editing processes in scholarly journals. However, our findings show that preprints had a significantly lower scientific impact, which might suggest that some preprints have lower quality and will not be able to endure peer-reviewing processes to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Letter to the Editor: publish, publish … cursed!

This paper comments on the phenomenon of “publish or perish” associated with the current information explosion and its awful consequence: the curse that hangs over academia which dooms it to publish incessantly irrelevant and pointless documents. The overabundance of publications is not justified and is not even necessary in many contexts for personal promotion, and even less for the advancement of science. Therefore, the current role of scientific journals is highly questionable that its aim could be misleading. Huge numbers of articles are published, but they are not read because the aim is principally “publish for publish,” or publication for its own sake. The standard corrective tool for improving scientific communication—peer review—cannot function adequately, and biases and perversions are introduced which undermine society’s confidence in the scientific enterprise. A dark landscape unfurls itself across the world of scientific information, forcing us to question and improve its current state. Methodologically this paper goes halfway between the essay and the review trying to provoke engaged and useful controversy.

Let’s do better: public representations of COVID-19 science

COVID science is being both done and circulated at a furious pace. While it is inspiring to see the research community responding so vigorously to the pandemic crisis, all this activity has also created a churning sea of bad data, conflicting results, and exaggerated headlines. With representations of science becoming increasingly polarized, twisted, and hyped, there is growing concern that the relevant science is being represented to the public in a manner that may cause confusion, inappropriate expectations, and the erosion of public trust. Here we explore some of the key issues associated with the representations of science in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these issues are not new. But the COVID-19 pandemic has placed a spotlight on the biomedical research process and amplified the adverse ramifications of poor public communication. We need to do better. As such, we conclude with 10 recommendations aimed at key actors involved in the communication of COVID-19 science, including government, funders, universities, publishers, media, and the research communities.

Towards Covid-19 Literacy: Investigating the Literacy Levels of University Students in Colombia

Covid-19 literacy, induced by the coronavirus disease (2019), is characterized as the understanding of Covid-19 as well as informed decisions based upon this understanding. This type of literacy is closely related to health literacy, scientific literacy, and scientific media literacy. It may be obvious to say that Covid-19 literacy is a key factor for governments to effectively manage the Covid-19 transition. However, lack of literature exists about Covid-19 literacy among university students. Therefore, the current study aimed to determine the Covid-19 literacy level among 4168 students from a Colombian university. The data were derived from students' responses to a 25-item anonymous online self-reporting questionnaire. We found that 21-25-year age group, graduate students, students enrolled prior to 2015, and medical students had a significantly higher mean score. Moreover, the Internet (86.8%) was the most popular source of information from which participants gained most information regarding Covid-19. Furthermore, 58.5% of the participants considered health workers as a source that can provide accurate information. Most importantly, the findings reveal the students' knowledge about (1) the role of an eventual process of vaccination, (2) the test currently used as diagnostic for Covid-19, and (3) the fatality rate, three aspects of Covid-19 literacy that deserve more attention. The findings provide a useful basis for the formulation of policies and concrete actions in improving Covid-19 literacy.

Measures of physical performance in COVID-19 patients: a mapping review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There is evidence of short- and long-term impairment of physical performance in patients with COVID-19 infection, but a verification of measures of physical impairment in this condition is lacking. We reviewed the measures used to assess physical performance in these patients. Secondary targets were measures of exercise or daily life activities induced symptoms.

METHODS

Medline, CINAHL, and Pedro databases were searched from January 2020 to February 2021 for articles in the English language. Two investigators independently conducted the search, screened all titles and/or abstracts based on the inclusion criteria and independently scored the studies. The quality of the studies was evaluated by two reviewers according to the NIH quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus.

RESULTS

Out of 156 potentially relevant articles, 31 observational studies (8 cross-sectional), 1 randomized controlled trial, and 1 protocol were included. The quality of most of the 31 evaluable studies was judged as low (11 studies) or fair (14 studies). Sample sizes of the studies ranged from 14 to 20,889 patients. among the 28 reported measures, Barthel Index (42.4% of studies), Six-Minute Walking Distance Test (36.4%), Short Physical Performance Battery (21.2%) and 1-Minute Sit-to-Stand (12.1%) were the most used. Fifteen% and 36% of studies reported exercise induced desaturation and dyspnoea when performing the assessments, respectively. Other exercise induced symptoms were fatigue and pain. Studies reported wide ranges of impairment in physical performance as compared to "reference" values (range of mean or median reported values vs "reference values": 11-77 vs 100 points for Barthel Index; 11-22 vs 22-37 repetitions/min for 1m-STS; 0.5-7.9 vs 11.4 ± 1.3 points for SPPB; and 45-223 vs 380-782 m for 6MWT respectively).

CONCLUSION

This review found that a wide variety of functional status tests have been used, making comparisons difficult between studies. These measures show impairment in physical performance in COVID-19 patients. However, the quality of most of the studies was judged as low or fair.

[Introduction to the quality of medical journalism and initial assessments of COVID-19 media coverage]

Die Medienlandschaft unterliegt einem stetigen Wandel, innovative Medientechnologien beeinflussen in immer stärkerem Maße unsere Lebenswelt. Da digitale Medien zunehmend in allen Altersklassen konsumiert werden und Laien sich im Internet auch häufig zu gesundheitlichen und medizinischen Themen informieren, stellt sich die Frage nach der Qualität dieser (journalistischen) Inhalte im Web. Die Rolle von Journalistinnen und Journalisten wandelt sich und für die Wissenschaft gibt es neue Möglichkeiten und Herausforderungen bei der digitalen Verbreitung von Forschungsergebnissen. Welchen qualitativen Ansprüchen müssen diese Inhalte genügen und welche Potenziale und Chancen, aber eben auch Risiken bringen online verbreitete und rezipierte Informationen mit sich?

Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden Themen der Medizin- und Gesundheitskommunikation und Prozesse der journalistischen Berichterstattung beschrieben. Anschließend diskutieren wir das in der Medizin bereits etablierte Kriterium der „Evidenz“ als möglichen Ansatz zur Beurteilung gesundheitsrelevanter und medizinischer Informationen. Abschließend wird die COVID-19-Pandemie im Kontext des wachsenden Medienpopulismus diskutiert.