Global academic response to COVID ‐19: Cross‐sectional study

  1. Jack A. Helliwell
  2. William S. Bolton
  3. Joshua R. Burke
  4. Jim P. Tiernan
  5. David G. Jayne
  6. Stephen J. Chapman

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

This study explores the response to COVID‐19 from investigators, editors, and publishers and seeks to define challenges during the early stages of the pandemic. A cross‐sectional bibliometric review of COVID‐19 literature was undertaken between 1 November 2019 and 24 March 2020, along with a comparative review of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) literature. Investigator responsiveness was assessed by measuring the volume and type of research published. Editorial responsiveness was assessed by measuring the submission‐to‐acceptance time and availability of original data. Publisher‐responsiveness was assessed by measuring the acceptance‐to‐publication time and the provision of open access. Three hundred and ninety‐eight of 2,835 COVID‐19 and 55 of 1,513 MERS search results were eligible. Most COVID‐19 studies were clinical reports ( n = 242; 60.8%). The submission‐to‐acceptance [median: 5 days (IQR: 3–11) versus 71.5 days (38–106); P < .001] and acceptance‐to‐publication [median: 5 days (IQR: 2–8) versus 22.5 days (4–48·5‐; P < .001] times were strikingly shorter for COVID‐19. Almost all COVID‐19 ( n = 396; 99.5%) and MERS ( n = 55; 100%) studies were open‐access. Data sharing was infrequent, with original data available for 104 (26.1%) COVID‐19 and 10 (18.2%) MERS studies ( P = .203). The early academic response was characterized by investigators aiming to define the disease. Studies were made rapidly and openly available. Only one‐in‐four were published alongside original data, which is a key target for improvement.

Key points

  • COVID‐19 publications show rapid response from investigators, specifically aiming to define the disease.

  • Median time between submission and acceptance of COVID‐19 articles is 5 days demonstrating rapid decision‐making compared with the median of 71.5 days for MERS articles.

  • Median time from acceptance to publication of COVID‐19 articles is 5 days, confirming the ability to introduce rapid increases at times of crisis, such as during the SARS outbreak.

  • The majority of both COVID‐19 and MERS articles are available open‐access.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1002/leap.1317
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.27.20081414: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Ethics & Governance: As a review of published literature, approval by a research ethics committee was not applicable.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Search Strategy: Systematic searches of MEDLINE (via OvidSP) and EMBASE (via OvidSP) were performed by a single investigator on 25th March 2020.
    MEDLINE
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    EMBASE
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.27.20081414v1 on medRxiv