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

COVID-19 Pandemic and Impact on Research Publications in Critical Care

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a significant transformation of scientific journals. Our aim was to determine how critical care (CC) journals and their impact may have evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that the impact, as measured by citations and publications, from the field of CC would increase.

DESIGN

Observational study of journal publications, citations, and retractions status.

SETTING

All work was done electronically and retrospectively.

SUBJECTS

The top 18 CC journals broadly concerning CC, and the top 5 most productive CC journals on the SCImago list.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

For the top 18 CC journals and specifically Critical Care Medicine (CCM), time series analysis was used to estimate the trends of total citations, citations per publication, and publications per year by using the best-fit curve. We used PubMed and Retraction Watch to determine the number of COVID-19 publications and retractions. The average total citations and citations per publication for all journals was an upward quadratic trend with inflection points in 2020, whereas publications per year spiked in 2020 before returning to prepandemic values in 2021. For CCM total publications trend downward while total citations and citations per publication generally trend up from 2017 onward. CCM had the lowest percentage of COVID-related publications (15.7%) during the pandemic and no reported retractions. Two COVID-19 retractions were noted in our top five journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Citation activity across top CC journals underwent a dramatic increase during the COVID-19 pandemic without significant retraction data. These trends suggest that the impact of CC has grown significantly since the onset of COVID-19 while maintaining adherence to a high-quality peer-review process.

Bibliometric analysis of ChatGPT in medicine

INTRODUCTION

The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) chat programs has opened two distinct paths, one enhancing interaction and another potentially replacing personal understanding. Ethical and legal concerns arise due to the rapid development of these programs. This paper investigates academic discussions on AI in medicine, analyzing the context, frequency, and reasons behind these conversations.

METHODS

The study collected data from the Web of Science database on articles containing the keyword "ChatGPT" published from January to September 2023, resulting in 786 medically related journal articles. The inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed articles in English related to medicine.

RESULTS

The United States led in publications (38.1%), followed by India (15.5%) and China (7.0%). Keywords such as "patient" (16.7%), "research" (12%), and "performance" (10.6%) were prevalent. The Cureus Journal of Medical Science (11.8%) had the most publications, followed by the Annals of Biomedical Engineering (8.3%). August 2023 had the highest number of publications (29.3%), with significant growth between February to March and April to May. Medical General Internal (21.0%) was the most common category, followed by Surgery (15.4%) and Radiology (7.9%).

DISCUSSION

The prominence of India in ChatGPT research, despite lower research funding, indicates the platform's popularity and highlights the importance of monitoring its use for potential medical misinformation. China's interest in ChatGPT research suggests a focus on Natural Language Processing (NLP) AI applications, despite public bans on the platform. Cureus' success in publishing ChatGPT articles can be attributed to its open-access, rapid publication model. The study identifies research trends in plastic surgery, radiology, and obstetric gynecology, emphasizing the need for ethical considerations and reliability assessments in the application of ChatGPT in medical practice.

CONCLUSION

ChatGPT's presence in medical literature is growing rapidly across various specialties, but concerns related to safety, privacy, and accuracy persist. More research is needed to assess its suitability for patient care and implications for non-medical use. Skepticism and thorough review of research are essential, as current studies may face retraction as more information emerges.

Article retraction rates in selected MeSH term categories in PubMed published between 2010 and 2020

BACKGROUND

Academic article retractions occur across all disciplines, though few studies have examined the association between research topics and retraction rates.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed and compared the rate of retraction across several important clinical research topics.

METHODS

Information about the number of publications, the number of retractions, the retraction rate, and the time to retraction was collected for articles identified by 15 Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. These articles were published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020. The searches took place between 18 September 2021 and 24 October 2021. The MeSH terms were selected based on our clinical experience with the expectation that there will be multiple publications during the timeframe to use for the searches. Additional topics were selected based on the frequency of controversy in the public media and were identified by the Altmetric Top 100 report.

RESULTS

The mean number of publications for all categories was 181,975 ± 332,245; the median number of publications was 67,991 [Q1, Q3; 31951.5, 138,981.5]. The mean number of retractions was 100.3 ± 251.3, and the median number of retractions was 22 [Q1, Q3; 6.5, 53]. The mean time to retraction ranged from 114 days to 1,409.5 days; the median was 857.3 days [Q1, Q3; 684.7, 1098.6], depending on the topic. The various MeSH term categories used in this study had significant differences in retraction rate and time to retraction. The "Neoplasms" category had the highest total number of retractions (993) and one of the highest retraction rates (75.4 per 100,000 publications).

DISCUSSION

All PubMed categories analyzed in this study had retracted articles. The median time to retraction was 857 days. The long delays in some categories could contribute to potentially misleading information which might have adverse effects on clinical decisions in patient care and on research design.

CONCLUSION

Rate of retraction varies across research topics and further studies are needed to explore this relationship.

Research and Publication Trends in Pediatric Surgery in Latin America: A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis from 2012 to 2021

INTRODUCTION

Pediatric surgery is a developing specialty with increasing volume in Latin America. However, the research and scientific activity trends carried out in this region in recent years are unknown. This study aimed to analyze and visualize Latin American research in pediatric surgery from 2012 to 2021.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Bibliometric cross-sectional study of scientific articles on pediatric surgery published by Latin American authors from 2012 to 2021 in Scopus was performed. Statistical and visual analysis was performed with R programming language and VOS viewer.

RESULTS

449 articles were found. Observational studies (44.7%; n = 201), case reports (20.4%; n = 92) and narrative reviews (11.4%; n = 51) were found to be the most common study designs. The published articles were predominantly monocentric (73.1%; n = 328), only 17% (n = 76) involved authors from 2 or more countries, and mostly there was no collaboration with high-income countries (80.6%; n = 362). The Journal of Pediatric Surgery was the journal with the highest volume of articles published (n = 37). The most used terms were Laparoscopy, Complications, and Liver Transplantation, and the countries with the highest number of articles published were Brazil and Argentina.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found a progressive increase in the scientific activity of Latin authors in pediatric surgery from 2012 to 2021. The evidence produced was mainly from observational studies and case reports, predominantly conducted in Brazil. Multinational and international collaboration was low; the most frequent topics of interest were laparoscopy and minimally invasive surgery.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

IV.

SARS-CoV-2 post-acute sequelae in previously hospitalised patients: systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many individuals hospitalised with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection experience post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), sometimes referred to as "long COVID". Our objective was to conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to identify PASC-associated symptoms in previously hospitalised patients and determine the frequency and temporal nature of PASC.

METHODS

Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library (2019-2021), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and reference lists were performed from November to December 2021. Articles were assessed by two reviewers against eligibility criteria and a risk of bias tool. Symptom data were synthesised by random effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Of 6942 records, 52 studies with at least 100 patients were analysed; ∼70% were Europe-based studies. Most data were from the first wave of the pandemic. PASC symptoms were analysed from 28 days after hospital discharge. At 1-4 months post-acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, the most frequent individual symptoms were fatigue (29.3% (95% CI 20.1-40.6%)) and dyspnoea (19.6% (95% CI 12.8-28.7%)). Many patients experienced at least one symptom at 4-8 months (73.1% (95% CI 44.2-90.3%)) and 8-12 months (75.0% (95% CI 56.4-87.4%)).

CONCLUSIONS

A wide spectrum of persistent PASC-associated symptoms were reported over the 1-year follow-up period in a significant proportion of participants. Further research is needed to better define PASC duration and determine whether factors such as disease severity, vaccination and treatments have an impact on PASC.

The impact of COVID-19 on global health journals: an analysis of impact factor and publication trends

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has affected research productivity across all areas of knowledge. Current evidence suggests that COVID-19 has had a blockbuster effect on journal impact factors (JIFs) and publication trends, while little is known on global health journals.

METHODS

Twenty global health journals were included to analyse the impact of COVID-19 on their JIFs and publication trends. Indicator data, including numbers of publications, citations, articles with different types, etc, were extracted from journal websites and Web of Science Core Collection database. The JIFs from 2019 to 2021 were simulated for longitudinal and cross-sectional analyses. Interrupted time-series analysis and non-parametric tests were applied to assess whether COVID-19 had decreased non-COVID-19 publications from January 2018 to June 2022.

RESULTS

In 2020, 615 out of 3223 publications were COVID-19 related, accounting for 19.08%. The simulated JIFs of 17 out of 20 journals in 2021 were higher than those in 2019 and 2020. Notably, 18 out of 20 journals had a decrease in their simulated JIFs after excluding COVID-19-related publications. Moreover, 10 out of 20 journals decreased their monthly numbers of non-COVID-19 publications after the COVID-19 outbreak. For all the 20 journals as a whole, after the COVID-19 outbreak in February 2020, the total number of non-COVID-19 publications significantly decreased by 14.2 compared with the previous month (p=0.013), and since then, on average, the publications had decreased by 0.6 per month until June 2022 (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 has impacted the structure of COVID-19-related publications, the JIFs of global health journals and their numbers of non-COVID-19 publications. Although journals may benefit from increased JIFs, global health journals should avoid relying on a single metric. More follow-up studies including more years of data with a combination of metrics should be conducted to generate more robust evidence.

Responsible conduct of research: Preparedness for times of crisis

A live, virtual conference, "Driving Responsible Conduct of Research during a Pandemic," was held in April 2021, 13 months after the COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally altered the conduct of clinical research across the USA. New York was an early epicenter of the US pandemic, highlighting preexisting problems in clinical research and allowing us to assess lessons learned and to identify best practices for the future. Risks and opportunities were categorized broadly into three areas, protecting the welfare and safety of human subjects, ensuring trust in science and medicine, and implementing efficient, ethical, and compliant clinical research. Analysis of conference proceedings, and recent publications, shows a need for preparedness that is more effective, robust partnerships, and organizational systems and standards to strengthen the ethical and responsible conduct of research.

Epidemiology and the Covid-19 pandemic: opportunities to review trajectories and plan for the future

The Covid-19 pandemic has caused substantial changes in various spheres of academic life. Epidemiology can use the experiences accumulated in this period as an opportunity to plan for its future. Facing a pandemic requires the production of explanatory theories about the pandemic process and its unequal manifestation in the population. In this sense, Epidemiology needs to strengthen its scientific foundations and recognize the values and limits of its approaches. Thus, it is essential to strengthen the links with other disciplines. A new teaching model can be produced from pandemic experiences, including transversal contents, such as preparation for responses to natural and technological disasters, like epidemics and pandemics, and scientific communication. The teaching of Epidemiology needs to be contextualized with the bases of Collective Health, reinforcing its commitment to the translation and application of knowledge in order to improve people’s health and lives.

Epidemiologia e pandemia de Covid-19: oportunidades para rever trajetórias e planejar o futuro

A pandemia de Covid-19 provocou modificações substanciais em diversas esferas da vida acadêmica. A Epidemiologia pode utilizar as experiências acumuladas nesse período como oportunidade para planejar seu futuro. O enfrentamento de uma pandemia exige a produção de teorias explicativas sobre o processo pandêmico e sua expressão desigual na população. Nesse sentido, a Epidemiologia necessita fortalecer seus fundamentos científicos e reconhecer os valores e limites de suas abordagens. Nesse caminho, é essencial o fortalecimento dos elos com outras disciplinas. Um novo modelo de ensino pode ser produzido por meio das experiências ao longo da pandemia, integrando conteúdos transversais, como a preparação para a resposta a desastres naturais e de origem tecnológica, incluindo epidemias e pandemias e a comunicação científica. O ensino da Epidemiologia precisa ser contextualizado com as bases da Saúde Coletiva, reforçando seu compromisso com a tradução e a aplicação do conhecimento para a melhoria da saúde e da vida das pessoas.

Publications on COVID-19 in radiology journals in 2020 and 2021: bibliometric citation and co-citation network analysis

OBJECTIVES

The pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has led to the rapid publication of numerous radiology articles, primarily focused on disease diagnosis. The objective of this study is to analyze the intellectual structure of radiology research on COVID-19 using a citation and co-citation analysis.

METHODS

We identified all documents about COVID-19 published in radiology journals included in the Web of Science in the period 2020-2021, conducting a citation analysis. Then we identified all bibliographic references that were cited by these documents, generating a co-citation matrix that was used to perform a co-citation network.

RESULTS

Of the 3418 documents indexed in WoS, 857 were initially "Early Access," 2223 had citations, 393 had more than 20 citations, and 83 had more than 100 citations. The USA had the highest number of publications (32.62%) and China had the highest rate of funded studies (45.38%). The three authors with the most publications were affiliated with Italian institutions, while the five most cited authors were Chinese. A total of 647 publications were co-cited at least 12 times and were published in 206 different journals, with 49% of the documents found in radiology journals. The institutions with the greatest presence among these co-cited articles were Chinese and American.

CONCLUSION

This co-citation analysis is the first to focus exclusively on radiology articles on COVID-19. Our study confirms the existence of interrelated thematic clusters with different specific weights.

KEY POINTS

• As the pandemic caused by SARS-Cov-2 has led to the rapid publication of numerous radiology studies in a short time period, a bibliometric review based on citation and co-citation analysis has been conducted. • The co-citation analysis supported the identification of key themes in the study of COVID-19 in radiology publications. • Many of the most co-cited articles belong to a heterogeneous group of publications, with authors from countries that are far apart and even from different disciplines.

Biased, wrong and counterfeited evidences published during the COVID-19 pandemic, a systematic review of retracted COVID-19 papers

In 2020 COVID-19 led to an unprecedented stream of papers being submitted to journals. Scientists and physicians all around the globe were in need for information about this new disease. In this climate, many articles were accepted after extremely fast peer-reviews to provide the scientific community with the latest discoveries and knowledge. Unfortunately, this also led to articles retraction due to authors' misconduct or errors in methodology and/or conclusions. The aim of this study is to investigate the number and characteristics of retracted papers, and to explore the main causes that led to retraction. We conducted a systematic review on retracted articles, using PubMed as data source. Our inclusion criteria were the following: English-language retracted articles that reported original data, results, opinions or hypotheses on COVID-19 and Sars-CoV-2. Twenty-seven retracted articles were identified, mainly reporting observational studies and opinion pieces. Many articles published during the first year of the pandemic have been retracted, mainly due to the authors' scientific misconduct. Duplications, plagiarism, frauds and absence of consent, were the main reasons for retractions. In modern medicine, researchers are required to publish frequently, and, especially during situations like the COVID-19 pandemic, when articles were rapidly published, gaps in peer-reviews system and in the path to scientific publication arose.