No time for that now! Qualitative changes in manuscript peer review during the Covid-19 pandemic

Cooperation in the Time of COVID

Humans evolved to be hyper-cooperative, particularly when among people who are well known to them, when relationships involve reciprocal helping opportunities, and when the costs to the helper are substantially less than the benefits to the recipient. Because humans' cooperative nature evolved over many millennia when they lived exclusively in small groups, factors that cause cooperation to break down tend to be those associated with life in large, impersonal, modern societies: when people are not identifiable, when interactions are one-off, when self-interest is not tied to the interests of others, and when people are concerned that others might free ride. From this perspective, it becomes clear that policies for managing pandemics will be most effective when they highlight superordinate goals and connect people or institutions to one another over multiple identifiable interactions. When forging such connections is not possible, policies should mimic critical components of ancestral conditions by providing reputational markers for cooperators and reducing the systemic damage caused by free riding. In this article, we review policies implemented during the pandemic, highlighting spontaneous community efforts that leveraged these aspects of people's evolved psychology, and consider implications for future decision makers.

Peer review trends in six fisheries science journals

BACKGROUND

As the production of scientific manuscripts and journal options both increase, the peer review process remains at the center of quality control. Recent advances in understanding reviewer biases and behaviors along with electronic manuscript handling records have allowed unprecedented investigations into the peer review process.

METHODS

We examined a sample of six journals within the field of fisheries science (and all published by the American Fisheries Society) specifically looking for changes in reviewer invitation rates, review time, patterns of reviewer agreements, and rejection rates relative to different forms of blinding.

RESULTS

Data from 6,606 manuscripts from 2011-2021 showed significant increases in reviewer invitations. Specifically, four journals showed statistically significant increases in reviewer invitations while two showed no change. Review times changed relatively little (± 2 weeks), and we found no concerning patterns in reviewer agreement. However, we documented a consistently higher rejection rate-around 20% higher-of double-blinded manuscripts when compared to single-blinded manuscripts.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings likely represent broader trends across fisheries science publications, and possibly extend to other life science disciplines. Because peer review remains a primary tool for scientific quality control, authors and editors are encouraged to understand the process and evaluate its performance at whatever level can help in the creation of trusted science. Minimally, our findings can help the six journals we investigated to better understand and improve their peer review processes.

Empirical support for a model of risk and resilience in children and families during COVID-19: A systematic review & narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND.

The COVID-19 Family Disruption Model (FDM) describes the cascading effects of pandemic-related social disruptions on child and family psychosocial functioning. The current systematic review assesses the empirical support for the model.

METHODS.

Study eligibility: 1) children between 2-18 years (and/or their caregivers); 2) a quantitative longitudinal design; 3) published findings during the first 2.5 years of COVID-19; 4) an assessment of caregiver and/or family functioning; 5) an assessment of child internalizing, externalizing, or positive adjustment; and 6) an examination of a COVID-19 FDM pathway. Following a search of PsycINFO and MEDLINE in August 2022, screening, full-text assessments, and data extraction were completed by two reviewers. Study quality was examined using an adapted NIH risk-of- bias tool.

RESULTS.

Findings from 47 studies were summarized using descriptive statistics, tables, and a narrative synthesis. There is emerging support for bidirectional pathways linking caregiver-child functioning and family-child functioning, particularly for child internalizing problems. Quality assessments indicated issues with attrition and power justification.

DISCUSSION.

We provide a critical summary of the empirical support for the model, highlighting themes related to family systems theory and risk/resilience. We outline future directions for research on child and family well-being during COVID-19. Systematic review registration. PROSPERO [CRD42022327191].

Effectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review

This rapid systematic review of evidence asks whether (i) wearing a face mask, (ii) one type of mask over another and (iii) mandatory mask policies can reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, either in community-based or healthcare settings. A search of studies published 1 January 2020-27 January 2023 yielded 5185 unique records. Due to a paucity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies were included in the analysis. We analysed 35 studies in community settings (three RCTs and 32 observational) and 40 in healthcare settings (one RCT and 39 observational). Ninety-five per cent of studies included were conducted before highly transmissible Omicron variants emerged. Ninety-one per cent of observational studies were at 'critical' risk of bias (ROB) in at least one domain, often failing to separate the effects of masks from concurrent interventions. More studies found that masks (n = 39/47; 83%) and mask mandates (n = 16/18; 89%) reduced infection than found no effect (n = 8/65; 12%) or favoured controls (n = 1/65; 2%). Seven observational studies found that respirators were more protective than surgical masks, while five found no statistically significant difference between the two mask types. Despite the ROB, and allowing for uncertain and variable efficacy, we conclude that wearing masks, wearing higher quality masks (respirators), and mask mandates generally reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission in these study populations. This article is part of the theme issue 'The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence'.

The experiences of COVID-19 preprint authors: a survey of researchers about publishing and receiving feedback on their work during the pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic caused a rise in preprinting, triggered by the need for open and rapid dissemination of research outputs. We surveyed authors of COVID-19 preprints to learn about their experiences with preprinting their work and also with publishing their work in a peer-reviewed journal. Our research had the following objectives: 1. to learn about authors' experiences with preprinting, their motivations, and future intentions; 2. to consider preprints in terms of their effectiveness in enabling authors to receive feedback on their work; 3. to compare the impact of feedback on preprints with the impact of comments of editors and reviewers on papers submitted to journals. In our survey, 78% of the new adopters of preprinting reported the intention to also preprint their future work. The boost in preprinting may therefore have a structural effect that will last after the pandemic, although future developments will also depend on other factors, including the broader growth in the adoption of open science practices. A total of 53% of the respondents reported that they had received feedback on their preprints. However, more than half of the feedback was received through "closed" channels-privately to the authors. This means that preprinting was a useful way to receive feedback on research, but the value of feedback could be increased further by facilitating and promoting "open" channels for preprint feedback. Almost a quarter of the feedback received by respondents consisted of detailed comments, showing the potential of preprint feedback to provide valuable comments on research. Respondents also reported that, compared to preprint feedback, journal peer review was more likely to lead to major changes to their work, suggesting that journal peer review provides significant added value compared to feedback received on preprints.

Energy efficient ventilation and indoor air quality in the context of COVID-19 - A systematic review

New COVID-19 ventilation guidelines have resulted in higher energy consumption to maintain indoor air quality (IAQ), and energy efficiency has become a secondary concern. Despite the significance of the studies conducted on COVID-19 ventilation requirements, a comprehensive investigation of the associated energy challenges has not been discussed. This study aims to present a critical systematic review of the Coronavirus viral spreading risk mitigation through ventilation systems (VS) and its relation to energy use. COVID-19 heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC)-related countermeasures proposed by industry professionals have been reviewed and their influence on operating VS and energy consumption have also been discussed. A critical review analysis was then conducted on publications from 2020 to 2022. Four research questions (RQs) have been selected for this review concerning i) maturity of the existing literature, ii) building types and occupancy profile, iii) ventilation types and effective control strategies and iv) challenges and related causes. The results reveal that employing HVAC auxiliary equipment is mostly effective and increased fresh air supply is the most significant challenge associated with increased energy consumption due to maintaining IAQ. Future studies should focus on novel approaches toward solving the apparently conflicting objectives of minimizing energy consumption and maximizing IAQ. Also, effective ventilation control strategies should be assessed in various buildings with different occupancy densities. The implications of this study can be useful for future development of this topic not only to enhance the energy efficiency of the VS but also to enable more resiliency and health in buildings.

Completeness and consistency of primary outcome reporting in COVID-19 publications in the early pandemic phase: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic saw a steep increase in the number of rapidly published scientific studies, especially early in the pandemic. Some have suggested COVID-19 trial reporting is of lower quality than typical reports, but there is limited evidence for this in terms of primary outcome reporting. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of completely defined primary outcomes reported in registry entries, preprints, and journal articles, and to assess consistent primary outcome reporting between these sources.

METHODS

This is a descriptive study of a cohort of registered interventional clinical trials for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, drawn from the DIssemination of REgistered COVID-19 Clinical Trials (DIRECCT) study dataset. The main outcomes are: 1) Prevalence of complete primary outcome reporting; 2) Prevalence of consistent primary outcome reporting between registry entry and preprint as well as registry entry and journal article pairs.

RESULTS

We analyzed 87 trials with 116 corresponding publications (87 registry entries, 53 preprints and 63 journal articles). All primary outcomes were completely defined in 47/87 (54%) registry entries, 31/53 (58%) preprints and 44/63 (70%) journal articles. All primary outcomes were consistently reported in 13/53 (25%) registry-preprint pairs and 27/63 (43%) registry-journal article pairs. No primary outcome was specified in 13/53 (25%) preprints and 8/63 (13%) journal articles. In this sample, complete primary outcome reporting occurred more frequently in trials with vs. without involvement of pharmaceutical companies (76% vs. 45%), and in RCTs vs. other study designs (68% vs. 49%). The same pattern was observed for consistent primary outcome reporting (with vs. without pharma: 56% vs. 12%, RCT vs. other: 43% vs. 22%).

CONCLUSIONS

In COVID-19 trials in the early phase of the pandemic, all primary outcomes were completely defined in 54%, 58%, and 70% of registry entries, preprints and journal articles, respectively. Only 25% of preprints and 43% of journal articles reported primary outcomes consistent with registry entries.

COVID-19 and the scientific publishing system: growth, open access and scientific fields

We model the growth of scientific literature related to COVID-19 and forecast the expected growth from 1 June 2021. Considering the significant scientific and financial efforts made by the research community to find solutions to end the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented volume of scientific outputs is being produced. This questions the capacity of scientists, politicians and citizens to maintain infrastructure, digest content and take scientifically informed decisions. A crucial aspect is to make predictions to prepare for such a large corpus of scientific literature. Here we base our predictions on the Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) and exponential smoothing models using the Dimensions database. This source has the particularity of including in the metadata information on the date in which papers were indexed. We present global predictions, plus predictions in three specific settings: by type of access (Open Access), by domain-specific repository (SSRN and MedRxiv) and by several research fields. We conclude by discussing our findings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-022-04536-x.

Peer review in funding-by-lottery: A systematic overview and expansion

Despite the surging interest in introducing lottery mechanisms into decision-making procedures for science funding bodies, the discourse on funding-by-lottery remains underdeveloped and, at times, misleading. Funding-by-lottery is sometimes presented as if it were a single mechanism when, in reality, there are many funding-by-lottery mechanisms with important distinguishing features. Moreover, funding-by-lottery is sometimes portrayed as an alternative to traditional methods of peer review when peer review is still used within funding-by-lottery approaches. This obscures a proper analysis of the (hypothetical and actual) variants of funding-by-lottery and important differences amongst them. The goal of this article is to provide a preliminary taxonomy of funding-by-lottery variants and evaluate how the existing evidence on peer review might lend differentiated support for variants of funding-by-lottery. Moreover, I point to gaps in the literature on peer review that must be addressed in future research. I conclude by building off of the work of Avin in moving toward a more holistic evaluation of funding-by-lottery. Specifically, I consider implications funding-by-lottery variants may have regarding trust and social responsibility.

Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals

Improving the methodological rigour and the quality of data analysis in manuscripts submitted to journals is key to ensure the validity of scientific claims. However, there is scant knowledge of how manuscripts change throughout the review process in academic journals. Here, we examined 27 467 manuscripts submitted to four journals from the Royal Society (2006-2017) and analysed the effect of peer review on the amount of statistical content of manuscripts, i.e. one of the most important aspects to assess the methodological rigour of manuscripts. We found that manuscripts with both initial low or high levels of statistical content increased their statistical content during peer review. The availability of guidelines on statistics in the review forms of journals was associated with an initial similarity of statistical content of manuscripts but did not have any relevant implications on manuscript change during peer review. We found that when reports were more concentrated on statistical content, there was a higher probability that these manuscripts were eventually rejected by editors.

COVIDPUBGRAPH: A FAIR Knowledge Graph of COVID-19 Publications

The rapid generation of large amounts of information about the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the disease COVID-19 makes it increasingly difficult to gain a comprehensive overview of current insights related to the disease. With this work, we aim to support the rapid access to a comprehensive data source on COVID-19 targeted especially at researchers. Our knowledge graph, CovidPubGraph, an RDF knowledge graph of scientific publications, abides by the Linked Data and FAIR principles. The base dataset for the extraction is CORD-19, a dataset of COVID-19-related publications, which is updated regularly. Consequently, CovidPubGraph is updated biweekly. Our generation pipeline applies named entity recognition, entity linking and link discovery approaches to the original data. The current version of CovidPubGraph contains 268,108,670 triples and is linked to 9 other datasets by over 1 million links. In our use case studies, we demonstrate the usefulness of our knowledge graph for different applications. CovidPubGraph is publicly available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

Measurement(s)	COVID-19-related publications
Technology Type(s)	named entity recognition, entity linking and link discovery approaches

The Asymmetric Influence of Emotion in the Sharing of COVID-19 Science on Social Media: Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Unlike past pandemics, COVID-19 is different to the extent that there is an unprecedented surge in both peer-reviewed and preprint research publications, and important scientific conversations about it are rampant on online social networks, even among laypeople. Clearly, this new phenomenon of scientific discourse is not well understood in that we do not know the diffusion patterns of peer-reviewed publications vis-à-vis preprints and what makes them viral.

OBJECTIVE

This paper aimed to examine how the emotionality of messages about preprint and peer-reviewed publications shapes their diffusion through online social networks in order to inform health science communicators' and policy makers' decisions on how to promote reliable sharing of crucial pandemic science on social media.

METHODS

We collected a large sample of Twitter discussions of early (January to May 2020) COVID-19 medical research outputs, which were tracked by Altmetric, in both preprint servers and peer-reviewed journals, and conducted statistical analyses to examine emotional valence, specific emotions, and the role of scientists as content creators in influencing the retweet rate.

RESULTS

Our large-scale analyses (n=243,567) revealed that scientific publication tweets with positive emotions were transmitted faster than those with negative emotions, especially for messages about preprints. Our results also showed that scientists' participation in social media as content creators could accentuate the positive emotion effects on the sharing of peer-reviewed publications.

CONCLUSIONS

Clear communication of critical science is crucial in the nascent stage of a pandemic. By revealing the emotional dynamics in the social media sharing of COVID-19 scientific outputs, our study offers scientists and policy makers an avenue to shape the discussion and diffusion of emerging scientific publications through manipulation of the emotionality of tweets. Scientists could use emotional language to promote the diffusion of more reliable peer-reviewed articles, while avoiding using too much positive emotional language in social media messages about preprints if they think that it is too early to widely communicate the preprint (not peer reviewed) data to the public.

Measuring the developmental function of peer review: a multi-dimensional, cross-disciplinary analysis of peer review reports from 740 academic journals

Reviewers do not only help editors to screen manuscripts for publication in academic journals; they also serve to increase the rigor and value of manuscripts by constructive feedback. However, measuring this developmental function of peer review is difficult as it requires fine-grained data on reports and journals without any optimal benchmark. To fill this gap, we adapted a recently proposed quality assessment tool and tested it on a sample of 1.3 million reports submitted to 740 Elsevier journals in 2018-2020. Results showed that the developmental standards of peer review are shared across areas of research, yet with remarkable differences. Reports submitted to social science and economics journals show the highest developmental standards. Reports from junior reviewers, women and reviewers from Western Europe are generally more developmental than those from senior, men and reviewers working in academic institutions outside Western regions. Our findings suggest that increasing the standards of peer review at journals requires effort to assess interventions and measure practices with context-specific and multi-dimensional frameworks.

A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges

Academic publishing is undergoing a highly transformative process, and many established rules and value systems that are in place, such as traditional peer review (TPR) and preprints, are facing unprecedented challenges, including as a result of post-publication peer review. The integrity and validity of the academic literature continue to rely naively on blind trust, while TPR and preprints continue to fail to effectively screen out errors, fraud, and misconduct. Imperfect TPR invariably results in imperfect papers that have passed through varying levels of rigor of screening and validation. If errors or misconduct were not detected during TPR's editorial screening, but are detected at the post-publication stage, an opportunity is created to correct the academic record. Currently, the most common forms of correcting the academic literature are errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions or withdrawals. Some additional measures to correct the literature have emerged, including manuscript versioning, amendments, partial retractions and retract and replace. Preprints can also be corrected if their version is updated. This paper discusses the risks, benefits and limitations of these forms of correcting the academic literature.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4.

Tracking openness and topic evolution of COVID-19 publications a comprehensive analysis (January 2020-March 2021) (Preprint)

Background

The COVID-19 outbreak highlighted the importance of rapid access to research.

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate research communication related to COVID-19, the level of openness of papers, and the main topics of research into this disease.

Methods

Open access (OA) uptake (typologies, license use) and the topic evolution of publications were analyzed from the start of the pandemic (January 1, 2020) until the end of a year of widespread lockdown (March 1, 2021).

Results

The sample included 95,605 publications; 94.1% were published in an OA form, 44% of which were published as Bronze OA. Among these OA publications, 42% do not have a license, which can limit the number of citations and thus the impact. Using a topic modeling approach, we found that articles in Hybrid and Green OA publications are more focused on patients and their effects, whereas the strategy to combat the pandemic adopted by different countries was the main topic of articles selecting publication via the Gold OA route.

Conclusions

Although OA scientific production has increased, some weaknesses in OA practice, such as lack of licensing or under-researched topics, still hold back its effective use for further research.

One-year in: COVID-19 research at the international level in CORD-19 data

The appearance of a novel coronavirus in late 2019 radically changed the community of researchers working on coronaviruses since the 2002 SARS epidemic. In 2020, coronavirus-related publications grew by 20 times over the previous two years, with 130,000 more researchers publishing on related topics. The United States, the United Kingdom and China led dozens of nations working on coronavirus prior to the pandemic, but leadership consolidated among these three nations in 2020, which collectively accounted for 50% of all papers, garnering well more than 60% of citations. China took an early lead on COVID-19 research, but dropped rapidly in production and international participation through the year. Europe showed an opposite pattern, beginning slowly in publications but growing in contributions during the year. The share of internationally collaborative publications dropped from pre-pandemic rates; single-authored publications grew. For all nations, including China, the number of publications about COVID track closely with the outbreak of COVID-19 cases. Lower-income nations participate very little in COVID-19 research in 2020. Topic maps of internationally collaborative work show the rise of patient care and public health clusters—two topics that were largely absent from coronavirus research in the two years prior to 2020. Findings are consistent with global science as a self-organizing system operating on a reputation-based dynamic.

Axiology of Covid-19 as a linguistic phenomenon

This work’s aim was to investigate what verbal means are used by English-speaking Twitter accounts to describe the pandemic while focusing on extralinguistic factors that are the primary catalysts for linguistic transformations in society. A critical discourse analysis of the lexeme ‘Covid-19’ and words accompanying it was applied. A total of 1736 English-language tweets (6844 lexical units) posted during March to April 2020 were selected for the analysis. Functional discourse analysis allowed systematising and commenting on sampling results as well as provided the opportunity to make the following conclusions. In tweets, the lexeme ‘Covid-19’ is combined not only with the actual name of the virus. This lexeme became a productive ground for derivation into various linguistic structures: substantive word combinations, abbreviations, neologisms and anthropomorphic metaphors. The research results application in international practice will allow linguists to interpret neologisms that emerged as a result of the pandemic and foster the understanding of axiological indicators of native speakers.

Peer reviewers equally critique theory, method, and writing, with limited effect on the final content of accepted manuscripts

The primary aims of peer review are to detect flaws and deficiencies in the design and interpretation of studies, and ensure the clarity and quality of their presentation. However, it has been questioned whether peer review fulfils this function. Studies have highlighted a stronger focus of reviewers on critiquing methodological aspects of studies and the quality of writing in biomedical sciences, with less focus on theoretical grounding. In contrast, reviewers in the social sciences appear more concerned with theoretical underpinnings. These studies also found the effect of peer review on manuscripts’ content to be variable, but generally modest and positive. I qualitatively analysed 1430 peer reviewers’ comments for a sample of 40 social science preprint-publication pairs to identify the key foci of reviewers’ comments. I then quantified the effect of peer review on manuscripts by examining differences between the preprint and published versions using the normalised Levenshtein distance, cosine similarity, and word count ratios for titles, abstracts, document sections and full-texts. I also examined changes in references used between versions and linked changes to reviewers’ comments. Reviewers’ comments were nearly equally split between issues of methodology (30.7%), theory (30.0%), and writing quality (29.2%). Titles, abstracts, and the semantic content of documents remained similar, although publications were typically longer than preprints. Two-thirds of citations were unchanged, 20.9% were added during review and 13.1% were removed. These findings indicate reviewers equally attended to the theoretical and methodological details and communication style of manuscripts, although the effect on quantitative measures of the manuscripts was limited.

Ivermectin and the Integrity of Healthcare Evidence During COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized by a lack of clear evidence to guide healthcare professionals, the public and policymakers. The resulting uncertainty, coupled with changing guidelines as additional evidence became available, added to the stress and anxiety reported by decision-makers. Research results are key to providing evidence to guide healthcare decisions. Important questions have arisen about whether various interventions are safe and effective. The evidence found guides those making treatment decisions, and influences those selecting interventions for further evaluation in research studies. As the COVID-19 pandemic intensified, the effectiveness and safety of many pharmaceuticals was queried. Ivermectin will be used to explore the ethics of how healthcare evidence must be critically appraised, even, or especially, during a pandemic. This drug is alleged to be effective in treating COVID-19, with various studies and systematic reviews finding supportive evidence. Some of these have now been linked to concerns about fraud or poor research reporting. This article will focus on the scientific literature and how apparently fraudulent studies were published and influenced treatment decisions, on-going research and public health guidelines. Research evidence is critical during emergencies like pandemics, but urgency should not overtake ethical responsibilities to critically appraise (or evaluate) studies as they become available. These responsibilities apply in various ways to editors, peer-reviewers, news media reporters, and those making treatment decisions, including clinicians, policymakers and the general public. While research article authors have the primary ethical responsibility to reject fraudulent or inaccurate claims, the readers of health research must carefully evaluate all publications. To detect and reject fraudulent healthcare claims, readers need critical appraisal skills that match their level of engagement with those articles. The core principles of critical appraisal will be described in the article, and how they can be adapted for different types of readers. Exemplar tools that develop critical appraisal skills will be noted, with reviews of ivermectin's efficacy explored as examples. As stakeholders in healthcare evidence are increasingly able to identify well-conducted and ethical research they will simultaneously be able to spot and reject fraudulent reports and prevent them from influencing healthcare decisions.

Factors affecting time to publication in information science

Publication speed is one of the important aspects of scholarly communication since various research performance evaluation systems are based mostly on published papers. This study aims to reveal the factors affecting the publication speed of journals. In this context, six information science journals: ASLIB Journal of Information Management, Journal of Documentation, Journal of Informetrics, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Online Information Review, and Scientometrics are analysed in terms of time to publication (from submission to decision). Our results show that publication time is significantly shorter when an editorial board member or a productive author of a given journal is one of the authors, in compare with the articles. submitted by other authors. The number of authors has a time-prolonging effect on publication time, as expected. On the other hand, publications with more citations were accepted in a shorter time. The papers with authors from central countries and high-income countries have an advantage of shorter publication time. Thus, this study shows that researchers who publish papers with popular and successful researchers from central countries have the advantage of the speed of publication which may have substantial effects on the future academic work, especially of early career researchers.

BIP4COVID19: Releasing impact measures for articles relevant to COVID-19

Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, a large number of relevant articles have been published or become available in preprint servers. These articles, along with earlier related literature, compose a valuable knowledge base affecting contemporary research studies or even government actions to limit the spread of the disease, and directing treatment decisions taken by physicians. However, the number of such articles is increasing at an intense rate, making the exploration of the relevant literature and the identification of useful knowledge challenging. In this work, we describe BIP4COVID19, an open data set that offers a variety of impact measures for coronavirus-related scientific articles. These measures can be exploited for the creation or extension of added-value services aiming to facilitate the exploration of the respective literature, alleviating the aforementioned issue. In the same context, as a use case, we provide a publicly accessible keyword-based search interface for COVID-19-related articles, which leverages our data to rank search results according to the calculated impact indicators.

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

Comparison of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 papers

OBJECTIVE

The need to generate evidence related to COVID-19, the acceleration of publication and peer-review process and the competition between journals may have influenced the quality of COVID-19 papers. Our objective was to compare the characteristics of COVID-19 papers against those of non-COVID-19 papers and identify the variables in which they differ.

METHOD

We conducted a journal-matched case-control study. Cases were COVID-19 papers and controls were non-COVID-19 papers published between March 2020 and January 2021. Journals belonging to five different Journal Citations Reports categories were selected. Within each selected journal, a COVID-19 paper (where there was one) and another non-COVID-19 paper were selected. Conditional logistic regression models were fitted.

RESULTS

We included 81 COVID-19 and 143 non-COVID-19 papers. Descriptive observational studies and analytical observational studies had, respectively, a 55-fold (odds ratio [OR]: 55.12; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 7.41-409.84) and 19-fold (OR: 19.28; 95%CI: 3.09-120.31) higher likelihood of being COVID-19 papers, respectively, and also a higher probability of having a smaller sample size (OR: 7.15; 95%CI: 2.33-21.94). COVID-19 papers had a higher probability of being cited since their publication (OR: 4.97; 95%CI: 1.63-15.10).

CONCLUSIONS

The characteristics of COVID-19 papers differed from those of non-COVID-19 papers published in the first months of the pandemic. In order to ensure the publication of good scientific evidence the quality of COVID-19-papers should be preserved.

Adjusting the use of preprints to accommodate the 'quality' factor in response to COVID-19

Preprints are typically crude precursors of peer-reviewed papers that are placed almost immediately, save for some superficial screening, on an open-access repository to allow the information to reach readers quickly, circumventing the long-drawn process typically associated with processing in peer-reviewed journals. For early-career researchers who might be enthusiastic about obtaining some recognition for their efforts, or wanting open and public input about their work, preprints are certainly a useful publication choice. However, if health-related data and information have not been carefully scrutinised, they may pose a risk and may even serve as a source of public health misinformation. Surging growth and competition among preprint servers, coupled with a massive volume of COVID-19-related preprints, mainly on bioRxiv and medRxiv, as well as select indexing now being tested on PubMed, suggests that preprints are being increasingly used in the biomedical sciences. Stronger and more robust ethical policies are needed to screen preprints before they are released to the public, and even if this implies a slight delay in publication, it may increase academics' trust in this form of scientific information and communication. Clear and stringent ethical policies need to be urgently introduced by ethics groups such as COPE and the ICMJE, whose many member journals allow preprints to be posted before traditional peer review. Stringent ethical guidelines that treat misconduct equally in preprints and peer-reviewed papers will boost the integrity of academic publishing.