A Network Analysis of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S): A Large-Scale Cross-Cultural Study in Iran, Bangladesh, and Norway.

The rapid spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to high levels of fear worldwide. Given that fear is an important factor in causing psychological distress and facilitating preventive behaviors, assessing the fear of COVID-19 is important. The seven-item Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) is a widely used psychometric instrument to assess this fear. However, the factor structure of the FCV-19S remains unclear according to the current evidence. Therefore, the present study used a network analysis to provide further empirical evidence for the factor structure of FCV-19S. A total of 24,429 participants from Iran (n = 10,843), Bangladesh (n = 9906), and Norway (n = 3680) completed the FCV-19S in their local language. A network analysis (via regularized partial correlation networks) was applied to investigate the seven FCV-19S items. Moreover, relationships between the FCV-19S items were compared across gender (males vs. females), age groups (18-30 years, 31-50 years, and >50 years), and countries (Iran, Bangladesh, and Norway). A two-factor structure pattern was observed (three items concerning physical factors, including clammy hands, insomnia, and heart palpitations; four items concerning psychosocial factors, including being afraid, uncomfortable, afraid of dying, and anxious about COVID-19 news). Moreover, this pattern was found to be the same among men and women, across age groups and countries. The network analysis used in the present study verified the two-factor structure for the FCV-19S. Future studies may consider using the two-factor structure of FCV-19S to assess the fear of COVID-19 during the COVID-19 era.

Exploring COVID-19 research credibility among Spanish scientists.

Amidst a worldwide vaccination campaign, trust in science plays a significant role when addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. Given current concerns regarding research standards, we were interested in how Spanish scholars perceived COVID-19 research and the extent to which questionable research practices and potentially problematic academic incentives are commonplace. We asked researchers to evaluate the expected quality of their COVID-19 projects and other peers' research and compared these assessments with those from scholars not involved in COVID-19 research. We investigated self-admitting and estimated rates of questionable research practices and attitudes towards current research status. Responses from 131 researchers suggested that COVID-19 evaluations followed partisan lines, with scholars being more pessimistic about others' colleagues' research than their own. Additionally,researchers not involved in COVID-19 projects were more negative than their participating peers. These differences were particularly notable for areas such as the expected theoretical foundations or overall quality of the research, among others. Most Spanish scholars expected questionable research practices and inadequate incentives to be widespread. In these two aspects, researchers tended to agree regardless of their involvement in COVID-19 research. We provide specific recommendations for improving future meta-science studies, such as redefining QRPs as inadequate research practices (IRP). This change could help avoid key controversies regarding QRPs' definition while highlighting their detrimental impact. Lastly, we join previous calls to improve transparency and academic career incentives as a cornerstone for generating trust in science. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-022-02797-6.