Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Applied Economics Letters ; 30(3):297-301, 2023.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-2228486

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused stock market crashes and collapse of economic activities in many countries. As a result, many investors changed their stock and bond market expectations. This study investigates whether the number of COVID-19 confirmed cases influences the forward-looking stock-bond correlations. We apply a quantile approach that is beneficial to explore non-linear relationships between the forward-looking stock-bond return correlations and the COVID-19 cases. The correlations are estimated using the DCC-GARCH model for 21 financial markets from three regions (North American, Asia-Pacific, and Europe). We present empirical evidence that there are heterogeneous responses across regions and countries. Specifically, the negative stock-bond correlations weaken as the number of COVID-19 cases in the regions of North America (the U.S. and Canada) and Asia-Pacific (Australia and Japan) increases. Our results suggest that the number of COVID-19 cases is not important. Investors sell risky stocks and buy safe Treasury bonds at the beginning of the pandemic, while they adjust their portfolios risk levels when they obtain more information. Our result also highlights that this pattern is not observed in European countries.

2.
PLoS One ; 17(5): e0261624, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1865335

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Bibliometrics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Europe , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
3.
Applied Economics Letters ; : 1-5, 2021.
Article in English | Taylor & Francis | ID: covidwho-1442926
4.
Scientometrics ; 126(5): 4225-4253, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1155309

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic presented a challenge to the global research community as scientists rushed to find solutions to the devastating crisis. Drawing expectations from resilience theory, this paper explores how the trajectory of and research community around the coronavirus research was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Characterizing epistemic clusters and pathways of knowledge through extracting terms featured in articles in early COVID-19 research, combined with evolutionary pathways and statistical analysis, the results reveal that the pandemic disrupted existing lines of coronavirus research to a large degree. While some communities of coronavirus research are similar pre- and during COVID-19, topics themselves change significantly and there is less cohesion amongst early COVID-19 research compared to that before the pandemic. We find that some lines of research revert to basic research pursued almost a decade earlier, whilst others pursue brand new trajectories. The epidemiology topic is the most resilient among the many subjects related to COVID-19 research. Chinese researchers in particular appear to be driving more novel research approaches in the early months of the pandemic. The findings raise questions about whether shifts are advantageous for global scientific progress, and whether the research community will return to the original equilibrium or reorganize into a different knowledge configuration.

5.
PLoS One ; 15(7): e0236307, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-659094

ABSTRACT

This paper seeks to understand whether a catastrophic and urgent event, such as the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, accelerates or reverses trends in international collaboration, especially in and between China and the United States. A review of research articles produced in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic shows that COVID-19 research had smaller teams and involved fewer nations than pre-COVID-19 coronavirus research. The United States and China were, and continue to be in the pandemic era, at the center of the global network in coronavirus related research, while developing countries are relatively absent from early research activities in the COVID-19 period. Not only are China and the United States at the center of the global network of coronavirus research, but they strengthen their bilateral research relationship during COVID-19, producing more than 4.9% of all global articles together, in contrast to 3.6% before the pandemic. In addition, in the COVID-19 period, joined by the United Kingdom, China and the United States continued their roles as the largest contributors to, and home to the main funders of, coronavirus related research. These findings suggest that the global COVID-19 pandemic shifted the geographic loci of coronavirus research, as well as the structure of scientific teams, narrowing team membership and favoring elite structures. These findings raise further questions over the decisions that scientists face in the formation of teams to maximize a speed, skill trade-off. Policy implications are discussed.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/trends , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , International Cooperation , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , China , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL