PMC:7781502 / 8758-14242 JSON TXT

Annnotations TAB JSON ListView MergeView

LitCovid-PubTator

LitCovid-PD-HP

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-HP","denotations":[{"id":"T3","span":{"begin":3925,"end":3929},"obj":"Phenotype"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A3","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T3","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0012531"}],"text":"Discussion\nIn this report, we analyzed COVID-19-related publication productivity based on articles available via PubMed in the first half of 2020.\nCOVID-19-themed items considerably contributed to overall medical scholarly output in this period. Importantly, most of the papers were original articles-the most essential medical knowledge source. However, one in four positions on COVID-19 were minor papers such as editorials, commentaries, etc. The growth in the number of articles was approximately geometrical. These results have to be taken with caution because preprints were indexed in PubMed with delay resulting from the publication process.\nCOVID-19 pandemic is a new health phenomenon, which requires detailed investigations. Several factors may enhance COVID-19 publication productivity. First, many journals established free open-access for papers on COVID-19 [7]. Moreover, the most valuable reports may also be rapidly reviewed. Many governmental and private institutions donated funds for research on SARS-CoV-2 and its spread [8-10]. Finally, media coverage of scientific progress related to COVID-19 remains intense [11,12]. In these circumstances, researchers have additional motivation to rapidly publish their results.\nEvery health crisis, like ongoing coronavirus pandemics, requires an acceleration in generating knowledge. To further hasten the research, more funding is required to benefit researchers working on emerging health problems. Other actions taken by authorities could be increasing the scientists' work time or engaging young researchers, who could increase not only their experience but also relieve more practiced scientists from their current projects. Both of these actions require additional funding as well [13]. We should carefully analyze regular scientific expenditure and additional funding available during COVID-19 pandemics to validate this hypothesis. This data should be compared with the research output about SARS-CoV-2.\nTo our best knowledge, there is no report concerning medical scientists’ productivity related to COVID-19. We showed that authors from countries with higher HDI produced more articles than authors from less developed areas. Previous publications also confirmed this disturbing trend [14]. There is a risk that developing countries generate less new knowledge on COVID-19, which could eventually lead to their further scientific marginalization and poor description of the pandemic in these areas [15,16]. We also showed that in most cases the country ranking based on COVID-19 publication is similar to SCImago country rank. This suggests that authors coming from countries that normally produced the highest number of publications were also the most versatile in switching their scientific work related to the ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic. It may also show that research funders from these countries can quickly and efficiently provide scientists with money needed for specific research in emergency situations. There is also a possibility that the number of articles produced by authors from different countries varies not only because of lower HDI and severity of COVID-19 pandemics. We have to consider the possible impact of factors such as armed conflicts, clinical engagement of physicians, etc. Moreover, school closure may cause female researchers to leave scientific work and take care of their children [17].\nUnsurprisingly, most of the articles were published in journals from the general category “Medicine,” and then “Infectious Diseases.” Further, the highest numbers of articles were published in categories “Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine” and “Dermatology.” In fact, COVID-19 may cause heart damage [18] and skin manifestations [19]. However, it may be suspected that more publications will be published in journals with categories such as “Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health” and “Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,” which will reflect the impact of the virus on public health and the emerging progress on intensive therapy on patients with severe COVID-19.\nStrengths\nFirst, entire MEDLINE was analyzed using an open API, and the economic and epidemiologic contexts were integrated in the calculations. The data we provided suggest that the level of development and scientific productivity prior to the ongoing pandemic determined the efficacy and rate of producing knowledge about a new, unknown danger. We may assume that future healthcare crises will also be better researched by countries with higher level of development, which are caring for their scientific productivity. This work generates further hypotheses. One of them is that greater spending on research proportionately associates with scientific productivity at the time of a public healthcare crisis [20]. We may also ask whether scientific productivity is associated with better results in fighting with the COVID-19 pandemic.\nLimitations\nThe study has several limitations. First, we analyzed only articles accessible via PubMed, which include the MEDLINE database and papers included in the National Library of Medicine catalogue [21]. PubMed only recently started to include preprints in search results. Second, we did not weight the importance of the research by journals’ criteria, articles’ citations, or altmetrics. These features may additionally distinguish most essential papers. Finally, we analyzed a limited number of factors that may be associated with the article’s productivity."}

TEST0

{"project":"TEST0","denotations":[{"id":"33409059-100-105-2309433","span":{"begin":1043,"end":1044},"obj":"[\"32710091\"]"},{"id":"33409059-87-93-2309434","span":{"begin":1137,"end":1139},"obj":"[\"32861293\"]"},{"id":"33409059-58-64-2309435","span":{"begin":1750,"end":1752},"obj":"[\"27351991\"]"},{"id":"33409059-208-214-2309436","span":{"begin":2471,"end":2473},"obj":"[\"32415617\"]"},{"id":"33409059-112-118-2309437","span":{"begin":3395,"end":3397},"obj":"[\"32669671\"]"},{"id":"33409059-174-180-2309438","span":{"begin":3706,"end":3708},"obj":"[\"32252591\"]"},{"id":"33409059-148-154-2309439","span":{"begin":4791,"end":4793},"obj":"[\"32478027\"]"},{"id":"33409059-158-164-2309440","span":{"begin":5123,"end":5125},"obj":"[\"29632445\"]"}],"text":"Discussion\nIn this report, we analyzed COVID-19-related publication productivity based on articles available via PubMed in the first half of 2020.\nCOVID-19-themed items considerably contributed to overall medical scholarly output in this period. Importantly, most of the papers were original articles-the most essential medical knowledge source. However, one in four positions on COVID-19 were minor papers such as editorials, commentaries, etc. The growth in the number of articles was approximately geometrical. These results have to be taken with caution because preprints were indexed in PubMed with delay resulting from the publication process.\nCOVID-19 pandemic is a new health phenomenon, which requires detailed investigations. Several factors may enhance COVID-19 publication productivity. First, many journals established free open-access for papers on COVID-19 [7]. Moreover, the most valuable reports may also be rapidly reviewed. Many governmental and private institutions donated funds for research on SARS-CoV-2 and its spread [8-10]. Finally, media coverage of scientific progress related to COVID-19 remains intense [11,12]. In these circumstances, researchers have additional motivation to rapidly publish their results.\nEvery health crisis, like ongoing coronavirus pandemics, requires an acceleration in generating knowledge. To further hasten the research, more funding is required to benefit researchers working on emerging health problems. Other actions taken by authorities could be increasing the scientists' work time or engaging young researchers, who could increase not only their experience but also relieve more practiced scientists from their current projects. Both of these actions require additional funding as well [13]. We should carefully analyze regular scientific expenditure and additional funding available during COVID-19 pandemics to validate this hypothesis. This data should be compared with the research output about SARS-CoV-2.\nTo our best knowledge, there is no report concerning medical scientists’ productivity related to COVID-19. We showed that authors from countries with higher HDI produced more articles than authors from less developed areas. Previous publications also confirmed this disturbing trend [14]. There is a risk that developing countries generate less new knowledge on COVID-19, which could eventually lead to their further scientific marginalization and poor description of the pandemic in these areas [15,16]. We also showed that in most cases the country ranking based on COVID-19 publication is similar to SCImago country rank. This suggests that authors coming from countries that normally produced the highest number of publications were also the most versatile in switching their scientific work related to the ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic. It may also show that research funders from these countries can quickly and efficiently provide scientists with money needed for specific research in emergency situations. There is also a possibility that the number of articles produced by authors from different countries varies not only because of lower HDI and severity of COVID-19 pandemics. We have to consider the possible impact of factors such as armed conflicts, clinical engagement of physicians, etc. Moreover, school closure may cause female researchers to leave scientific work and take care of their children [17].\nUnsurprisingly, most of the articles were published in journals from the general category “Medicine,” and then “Infectious Diseases.” Further, the highest numbers of articles were published in categories “Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine” and “Dermatology.” In fact, COVID-19 may cause heart damage [18] and skin manifestations [19]. However, it may be suspected that more publications will be published in journals with categories such as “Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health” and “Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,” which will reflect the impact of the virus on public health and the emerging progress on intensive therapy on patients with severe COVID-19.\nStrengths\nFirst, entire MEDLINE was analyzed using an open API, and the economic and epidemiologic contexts were integrated in the calculations. The data we provided suggest that the level of development and scientific productivity prior to the ongoing pandemic determined the efficacy and rate of producing knowledge about a new, unknown danger. We may assume that future healthcare crises will also be better researched by countries with higher level of development, which are caring for their scientific productivity. This work generates further hypotheses. One of them is that greater spending on research proportionately associates with scientific productivity at the time of a public healthcare crisis [20]. We may also ask whether scientific productivity is associated with better results in fighting with the COVID-19 pandemic.\nLimitations\nThe study has several limitations. First, we analyzed only articles accessible via PubMed, which include the MEDLINE database and papers included in the National Library of Medicine catalogue [21]. PubMed only recently started to include preprints in search results. Second, we did not weight the importance of the research by journals’ criteria, articles’ citations, or altmetrics. These features may additionally distinguish most essential papers. Finally, we analyzed a limited number of factors that may be associated with the article’s productivity."}

LitCovid-sentences

PMC:7781502 / 8758-14242 JSONTXT

Annnotations TAB JSON ListView MergeView

LitCovid-PubTator

LitCovid-PD-HP

TEST0

LitCovid-sentences

PMC:7781502 / 8758-14242 JSON TXT