Time to Acceptance of 3 Days for Papers About COVID-19

Mistakes, Misrepresentation, and Misunderstanding on Applications to a Canadian Diagnostic Radiology Residency Program

Purpose: Determine the educational background, research publications/presentations experience, and rates of research publication and presentation inaccuracies in applications to a Canadian diagnostic imaging residency program. Method: The education and publication/presentation sections of the Canadian Resident Matching Service form for all applicants to the University of Saskatchewan diagnostic imaging residency program from 2019-20 and 2020-21 were reviewed. Number of advanced degrees (Master's/PhDs), publications, and presentations were recorded. Accuracy of publications listed was confirmed via PubMed-MEDLINE, journal's website, or internet searching. Accuracy of presentations was confirmed via society and residency program websites. Inaccuracies of non-authorship, incorrect authorship order/status (self-promotion or demotion), and nonexistence of article/presentation from a verifiable source were recorded. Result: There were a total of 106 applicants. Thirty (28%) had advanced degrees. There were 230 publications from 61 applicants with inaccuracies in only 5 (2%) of the publications (2 self-promotion, 3 self-demotion). For the 77 publications listed as pending, 25 (31%) were published within 6 months of applications deadlines with 1 non-authorship, 1 self-promotion, and 1 self-demotion. For scientific presentations, there were 467 listed presentations by 91 applicants. Two hundred and twenty-one presentations were from verifiable sources with inaccuracies in 28 (13%) of presentations (9 self-promotion, 9 self-demotion, 1 non-authorship, and 9 non-existence). Conclusion: Despite some uncertainty with scientific articles reported as pending and scientific presentations, radiology residency applicants are accurately representing their published articles with a negligible number of misrepresentations. Canadian radiology residency programs should regard the publication profiles of the applicants with a high level of confidence.

Institution and gender-related differences in publication speed before and during COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic elicited a substantial hike in journal submissions and a global push to get medical evidence quickly through the review process. Editorial decisions and peer-assessments were made under intensified time constraints, which may have amplified social disparities in the outcomes of peer-reviewing, especially for COVID-19 related research. This study quantifies the differential impact of the pandemic on the duration of the peer-review process for women and men and for scientists at different strata of the institutional-prestige hierarchy. Using mixed-effects regression models with observations clustered at the journal level, we analysed newly available data on the submission and acceptance dates of 78,085 medical research articles published in 2019 and 2020. We found that institution-related disparities in the average time from manuscript submission to acceptance increased marginally in 2020, although half of the observed change was driven by speedy reviews of COVID-19 research. For COVID-19 papers, we found more substantial institution-related disparities in review times in favour of authors from highly-ranked institutions. Descriptive survival plots also indicated that scientists with prestigious affiliations benefitted more from fast-track peer reviewing than did colleagues from less reputed institutions. This difference was more pronounced for journals with a single-blind review procedure compared to journals with a double-blind review procedure. Gender-related changes in the duration of the peer-review process were small and inconsistent, although we observed a minor difference in the average review time of COVID-19 papers first authored by women and men.

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.

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.

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

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

Methodological guidance for rapid reviews in healthcare: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present work was to identify published methodological guidance for rapid reviews (RRs) and to analyze the recommendations with regard to time-saving measures.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE in November 2020. In addition, a search based on Google Scholar and websites of governmental and non-governmental organizations was conducted. Literature screening was carried out by two researchers independently.

RESULTS

A total of 34 publications were included. These describe 38 distinct RR types. The timeframe to complete the identified RR types ranges from 24 hours to six months (mean time 2.2 months). For most RR types a specific research question (n=21) and a prioritizing search (n=25; preference for e.g. systematic reviews, meta-analyses) is employed. Different approaches such as reduced personnel in literature screening (n=21) and data extraction (n=21) are recommended. The majority of RR types include a bias assessment (n=28) and suggest a narrative report focusing on safety and efficacy.

CONCLUSION

The included RR types are heterogeneous in terms of completion time, considered domains and strategies to alter the standard systematic review methods. A rationale for the recommended shortcuts is rarely presented. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Publishing of COVID-19 preprints in peer-reviewed journals, preprinting trends, public discussion and quality issues

COVID-19-related (vs. non-related) articles appear to be more expeditiously processed and published in peer-reviewed journals. We aimed to evaluate: (i) whether COVID-19-related preprints were favored for publication, (ii) preprinting trends and public discussion of the preprints, and (iii) the relationship between the publication topic (COVID-19-related or not) and quality issues. Manuscripts deposited at bioRxiv and medRxiv between January 1 and September 27 2020 were assessed for the probability of publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and those published were evaluated for submission-to-acceptance time. The extent of public discussion was assessed based on Altmetric and Disqus data. The Retraction Watch Database and PubMed were used to explore the retraction of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 articles and preprints. With adjustment for the preprinting server and number of deposited versions, COVID-19-related preprints were more likely to be published within 120 days since the deposition of the first version (OR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.80-2.14) as well as over the entire observed period (OR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.31-1.48). Submission-to-acceptance was by 35.85 days (95% CI: 32.25-39.45) shorter for COVID-19 articles. Public discussion of preprints was modest and COVID-19 articles were overrepresented in the pool of retracted articles in 2020. Current data suggest a preference for publication of COVID-19-related preprints over the observed period.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-021-04249-7.

Peer Review Metrics and their influence on the Journal Impact

The manuscript processing timeline, a necessary facet of the publishing process, varies from journal to journal, and its influence on the journal impact needs to be studied. The current research looks into the correlation between the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ (submission to first editorial decision; submission to first post-review decision and submission to accept) and the ‘Journal Impact Data’ (2-year Impact Factor; 5-year Impact Factor; Immediacy Index; Eigenfactor Score and Article Influence Score). The data related to ‘Peer Review Metrics’ (submission to first editorial decision; submission to first post-review decision and submission to accept) and ‘Journal Impact Data’ (2-year Impact Factor; 5-year Impact Factor; Immediacy Index; Eigenfactor Score and Article Influence Score) were downloaded from the ‘Nature Research’ journals website https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/about/journal-metrics . Accordingly, correlations were drawn between the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ and the ‘Journal Impact Data’. If the time from ‘submission to first editorial decision’ decreases, the ‘Journal Impact Data’ increases and vice versa. However, an increase or decrease in the time from ‘submission to first editorial decision’ does not affect the ‘Eigenfactor Score’ of the journal and vice versa. An increase or decrease in the time from ‘submission to first post-review decision’ does not affect any ‘Journal Impact Data’ and vice versa. If the time from ‘submission to acceptance’ increases, the ‘Journal Impact Data’ (2-year Impact Factor, 5-year Impact Factor, Immediacy Index and Article Influence Score) also increases, and if the time from ‘submission to acceptance’ decreases, so will the ‘Journal Impact Data’. However, an increase or decrease in the time from ‘submission to acceptance’ does not affect the ‘Eigenfactor Score’ of the journal and vice versa. The study will act as a ready reference tool for the scholars to select the most appropriate submitting platforms for their scholarly endeavours. Furthermore, the performance and evaluative indicators responsible for a journal’s overall research performance can also be understood from a micro-analytical view, which will help the researchers select appropriate journals for their future scholarly submissions. Lengthy publication timelines are a big problem for the researchers because they are not able to get the credit for their research on time. Since the study validates a relationship between the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ and ‘Journal Impact Data’, the findings will be of great help in making an appropriate journal’s choice. The study can be an eye opener for the journal administrators who vocalise a speed-up publication process by enhancing certain areas of publication timeline. The study is the first of its kind that correlates the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ of the journals and the ‘Journal Impact Data’. The study’s findings are limited to the data retrieved from the ‘Nature Research’ journals and cannot be generalised to the full score of journals. The study can be extended across other publishers to generalise the findings. Even the articles’ early access availability concerning ‘Peer Review Metrics’ of the journals and the ‘Journal Impact Data’ can be studied.

Digitainability—Digital Competences Post-COVID-19 for a Sustainable Society

The digitalization of societies, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, is an unstoppable process. This paper seeks to answer the question: what post-COVID-19 digital competences are needed for a sustainable society? It also aims to analyze the digitalization processes in education for shaping a sustainable digital society. A bibliographic search was performed on some of the most relevant international databases of scientific literature and the selected documents were analyzed through a content analysis. It is concluded that digital education has experienced a strong increase, reinforced by COVID-19, shaping the digital presence in all dimensions of life. However, it is not sufficient to assume that the new generations are naturally engaged in and can master digital social sustainability. The results demonstrate the importance of literacy and the unavoidable promotion of sustainability in a digital society. However, this digitalization of the educational process poses several challenges: it requires both software and hardware conditions, as well as digital literacy as a result of a complex of literacies. It also implies that teachers and students change their standpoints and practices with the attainment of new teaching and learning competences in order to fight the digital divide and to foster the widest possible social inclusion for the promotion of sustainable society—digitainability.

A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 research in Latin America and the Caribbean

Introduction: Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) is one of the regions most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, there is scarce literature addressing the research strategies developed in LAC to face COVID-19. Objective: To quantify and assess the production of scientific publications about COVID-19 in 32 countries of LAC between January 1 and July 31, 2020. Materials and methods: Bibliometric study. Scientific papers on COVID-19 conducted in LAC or reporting data pertaining to LAC and published between January 1 to July 31, 2020, were searched in the Scopus, PubMed, and LILACS databases. A subgroup analysis including only original research articles was performed to determine the contribution of LAC countries to research on COVID-19, and standardization measures (# of articles per million people) were applied to compare the country-specific production of this type of articles. Results: A total of 1 291 publications were retrieved. Overall, most of them were non-original research articles (81.72%), and the countries with the highest scientific production were Brazil (43.91%) and Mexico (9.14%). However, after applying the standardization measures, Chile was the country with the highest production of original articles (0.58 per million inhabitants). Regarding original studies (n=236), cross-sectional design was the most common (25.84%). Diagnosis and treatment of the disease was the main research focus (n=354; 27.42%). However, in the subgroup analysis (n=236), epidemiology and surveillance were the most prevalent research focus (n=57; 24.15%). Conclusions: During the study period, non-original research articles were predominant in the scientific production of the LAC region, and interventional studies were scarce among original articles, while the cross-sectional design predominated. Further research with a better quality of evidence should be performed in these countries to contribute to the making of health policies aimed at easing the burden of COVID-19 in the region and preparing for future pandemics.

Publication patterns' changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal and short-term scientometric analysis

In recent months the COVID-19 (also known as SARS-CoV-2 and Coronavirus) pandemic has spread throughout the world. In parallel, extensive scholarly research regarding various aspects of the pandemic has been published. In this work, we analyse the changes in biomedical publishing patterns due to the pandemic. We study the changes in the volume of publications in both peer reviewed journals and preprint servers, average time to acceptance of papers submitted to biomedical journals, international (co-)authorship of these papers (expressed by diversity and volume), and the possible association between journal metrics and said changes. We study these possible changes using two approaches: a short-term analysis through which changes during the first six months of the outbreak are examined for both COVID-19 related papers and non-COVID-19 related papers; and a longitudinal approach through which changes are examined in comparison to the previous four years. Our results show that the pandemic has so far had a tremendous effect on all examined accounts of scholarly publications: A sharp increase in publication volume has been witnessed and it can be almost entirely attributed to the pandemic; a significantly faster mean time to acceptance for COVID-19 papers is apparent, and it has (partially) come at the expense of non-COVID-19 papers; and a significant reduction in international collaboration for COVID-19 papers has also been identified. As the pandemic continues to spread, these changes may cause a slow down in research in non-COVID-19 biomedical fields and bring about a lower rate of international collaboration.

COVID-19 in Management Studies: A Systematic Literature Review

In 2020, the whole world had to face a pandemic with inevitable profound changes in all aspects of life, from the social to the economic sphere. The profound economic crisis that followed the rise of the pandemic has pushed firms and researchers to question the necessary changes and new challenges for the survival of businesses. In this scenario, the aim of the paper is to analyze and classify the main contributions published on the topic of COVID-19 in managerial literature, seeking to discover the perspective and the gaps and outline future avenues of research. A systematic review of the literature has been performed. The results highlight the orientation of studies in this field and the various links between different aspects that emerged. Limitations and implications complete the research.

Optimizing peer review to minimize the risk of retracting COVID-19-related literature

Retractions of COVID-19 literature in both preprints and the peer-reviewed literature serve as a reminder that there are still challenging issues underlying the integrity of the biomedical literature. The risks to academia become larger when such retractions take place in high-ranking biomedical journals. In some cases, retractions result from unreliable or nonexistent data, an issue that could easily be avoided by having open data policies, but there have also been retractions due to oversight in peer review and editorial verification. As COVID-19 continues to affect academics and societies around the world, failures in peer review might also constitute a public health risk. The effectiveness by which COVID-19 literature is corrected, including through retractions, depends on the stringency of measures in place to detect errors and to correct erroneous literature. It also relies on the stringent implementation of open data policies.

Fast Forward Science: Risks and Benefits in the Rapid Science of COVID-19

Since the onset of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic in late 2019, the scientific literature on the SARS-COV-2 virus and the disease COVID-19 has a growth rate that resembles the growth in confirmed COVID-19 cases that continue to make media headlines all across the globe. Biomedical coronavirus research started slowly but increased to hundreds of articles per week—not unlike the spread of the virus itself. At the time of writing in mid-2020, around 2500 publications per week appear in PubMed on COVID-19 or SARS-COV-2. This new biomedical literature has emerged at an unprecedented but will the scientific community be able to end the suffering caused by the pandemic? Can we trust the insights from the rapidly emerging scientific literature on the coronavirus to implement wide-ranging social, economic, and health policies and vaccination programs? To answer these questions, I here relate the rapid science on the coronavirus pandemic to regular biomedical science and the meta-scientific insights on it. I focus my attention on peer reviews, open access, retractions, open data, and registration of studies.