Further divided gender gaps in research productivity and collaboration during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from coronavirus-related literature.

Based on publication data on coronavirus-related fields, this study applies a difference in differences approach to explore the evolution of gender inequalities before and during the COVID-19 pandemic by comparing the differences in the numbers and shares of authorships, leadership in publications, gender composition of collaboration, and scientific impacts. We find that, during the pandemic: (1) females' leadership in publications as the first author was negatively affected; (2) although both females and males published more papers relative to the pre-pandemic period, the gender gaps in the share of authorships have been strengthened due to the larger increase in males' authorships; (3) the share of publications by mixed-gender collaboration declined; (4) papers by teams in which females play a key role were less cited in the pre-pandemic period, and this citation disadvantage was exacerbated during the pandemic; and (5) gender inequalities regarding authorships and collaboration were enhanced in the initial stage of COVID-19, widened with the increasing severity of COVID-19, and returned to the pre-pandemic level in September 2020. This study shows that females' lower participation in teams as major contributors and less collaboration with their male colleagues also reflect their underrepresentation in science in the pandemic period. This investigation significantly deepens our understanding of how the pandemic influenced academia, based on which science policies and gender policy changes are proposed to mitigate the gender gaps.

Pandemics are catalysts of scientific novelty: Evidence from COVID-19.

Scientific novelty drives the efforts to invent new vaccines and solutions during the pandemic. First-time collaboration and international collaboration are two pivotal channels to expand teams' search activities for a broader scope of resources required to address the global challenge, which might facilitate the generation of novel ideas. Our analysis of 98,981 coronavirus papers suggests that scientific novelty measured by the BioBERT model that is pretrained on 29 million PubMed articles, and first-time collaboration increased after the outbreak of COVID-19, and international collaboration witnessed a sudden decrease. During COVID-19, papers with more first-time collaboration were found to be more novel and international collaboration did not hamper novelty as it had done in the normal periods. The findings suggest the necessity of reaching out for distant resources and the importance of maintaining a collaborative scientific community beyond nationalism during a pandemic.

Analyzing knowledge entities about COVID-19 using entitymetrics.

COVID-19 cases have surpassed the 109 + million markers, with deaths tallying up to 2.4 million. Tens of thousands of papers regarding COVID-19 have been published along with countless bibliometric analyses done on COVID-19 literature. Despite this, none of the analyses have focused on domain entities occurring in scientific publications. However, analysis of these bio-entities and the relations among them, a strategy called entity metrics, could offer more insights into knowledge usage and diffusion in specific cases. Thus, this paper presents an entitymetric analysis on COVID-19 literature. We construct an entity-entity co-occurrence network and employ network indicators to analyze the extracted entities. We find that ACE-2 and C-reactive protein are two very important genes and that lopinavir and ritonavir are two very important chemicals, regardless of the results from either ranking.