ABSTRACT
Massive scientific productivity accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the citation impact of COVID-19 publications relative to all scientific work published in 2020-2021 and assessed the impact on scientist citation profiles. Using Scopus data until August 1, 2021, COVID-19 items accounted for 4% of papers published, 20% of citations received to papers published in 2020-2021 and >30% of citations received in 36 of the 174 disciplines of science (up to 79.3% in General and Internal Medicine). Across science, 98 of the 100 most-cited papers published in 2020-2021 were related to COVID-19. 110 scientists received >=10,000 citations for COVID-19 work, but none received >=10,000 citations for non-COVID-19 work published in 2020-2021. For many scientists, citations to their COVID-19 work already accounted for more than half of their total career citation count. Overall, these data show a strong covidization of research citations across science with major impact on shaping the citation elite.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
ObjectiveTo examine how and when the results of COVID-19 clinical trials are disseminated. DesignCross-sectional bibliographic study SettingThe COVID-19 clinical trial landscape Participants285 registered interventional clinical trials for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 completed by 30 June 2020 Main outcome measuresOverall reporting and reporting by dissemination route (i.e., by journal article, preprint, or results on a registry); time to reporting by dissemination route. ResultsFollowing automated and manual searches of the COVID-19 literature, we located 41 trials (14%) with results spread across 47 individual results publications published by 15 August 2020. The most common dissemination route was preprints (n = 25) followed by journal articles (n = 18), and results on a registry (n = 2). Of these, four trials were available as both a preprint and journal publication. The cumulative incidence of any reporting surpassed 20% at 119 days from completion. Sensitivity analyses using alternate dates available and definitions of results did not appreciably change the reporting percentage. Expanding minimum follow-up time to 3 months increased the overall reporting percentage to 19%. ConclusionCOVID-19 trials completed during the first six months of the pandemic did not consistently yield rapid results in the literature or on clinical trial registries. Our findings suggest that the COVID-19 response may be seeing quicker results disclosure compared to non-emergency conditions. Issues with the reliability and timeliness of trial registration data may impact our estimates. Ensuring registry data is accurate should be a priority for the research community during a pandemic. Data collection is underway for Phase 2 of the DIRECCT study expanding our trial population to those completed anytime in 2020.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
ImportanceCOVID-19 is a major global crisis and the scientific community has been mobilized to deal with this crisis. ObjectiveTo estimate the extent to which the scientific workforce in different fields has been engaged publishing papers relative to the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, setting, and participantsWe evaluated Scopus (data cut, December 1, 2020) for all indexed published papers and preprints relevant to COVID-19. We mapped this COVID-19 literature in terms of its authors across 174 subfields of science according to the Science Metrix classification. We also evaluated the extent to which the most influential scientists across science (based on a composite citation indicator) had published COVID-19-related research. Finally, we assessed the features of authors who published the highest number of COVID-19 publications and of those with the highest impact in the COVID-19 field based on the composite citation indicator limited to COVID-19 publications. Main outcomes and measuresPublishing scientists (authors) and their published papers and citation impact. Results84,180 indexed publications were relevant to COVID-19 including 322,279 unique authors. The highest rates of COVID-19 publications were seen for authors classified in Public Health and in Clinical Medicine, where 11.3% (6,388/56,516) and 11.1% (92,570/833,060) of authors, respectively, had published on COVID-19. Almost all (173/174) subfields (except for Automobile Design & Engineering) had some authors publishing on COVID-19. Among active scientists at the top 2% of citation impact, 15,803 (13.3%) had published on COVID-19 in their publications in the first 11 months of 2020. The rates were the highest in the fields of Clinical Medicine (27.7%) and Public Health (26.8%). In 83 of the 174 subfields of science, at least one in ten active, influential authors in that field had authored something on COVID-19. 65 authors had already at least 30 (and up to 133) COVID-19 publications each. Among the 300 authors with the highest composite citation indicator for COVID-19 publications, 26 were journalists or editors publishing news stories or editorials in prestigious journals; most common countries for the remaining were China (n=77), USA (n=66), UK (n=27), and Italy (n=20). Conclusions and relevanceThe scientific literature and publishing scientists have been rapidly and massively infected by COVID-19 creating opportunities and challenges. There is evidence for hyper-prolific productivity.