Physician and Biomedical Scientist Harassment on Social Media During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This survey study assesses the frequency and nature of harassment on social media experienced by physicians, biomedical scientists, and trainees during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Peer Review in a General Medical Research Journal Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Although peer review is an important component of publication for new research, the viability of this process has been questioned, particularly with the added stressors of the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To characterize rates of peer reviewer acceptance of invitations to review manuscripts, reviewer turnaround times, and editor-assessed quality of reviews before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic at a large, open-access general medical journal. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, pre-post cohort study examined all research manuscripts submitted to JAMA Network Open between January 1, 2019, and June 29, 2021, either directly or via transfer from other JAMA Network journals, for which at least 1 peer review of manuscript content was solicited. Measures were compared between the period before the World Health Organization declaration of a COVID-19 pandemic on March 11, 2020 (14.3 months), and the period during the pandemic (15.6 months) among all reviewed manuscripts and between pandemic-period manuscripts that did or did not address COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: For each reviewed manuscript, the number of invitations sent to reviewers, proportions of reviewers accepting invitations, time in days to return reviews, and editor-assessed quality ratings of reviews were determined. Results: In total, the journal sought review for 5013 manuscripts, including 4295 Original Investigations (85.7%) and 718 Research Letters (14.3%); 1860 manuscripts were submitted during the prepandemic period and 3153 during the pandemic period. Comparing the prepandemic with the pandemic period, the mean (SD) number of reviews rated as high quality (very good or excellent) per manuscript increased slightly from 1.3 (0.7) to 1.5 (0.7) (P < .001), and the mean (SD) time for reviewers to return reviews was modestly shorter (from 15.8 [7.6] days to 14.4 [7.0] days; P < .001), a difference that persisted in linear regression models accounting for manuscript type, study design, and whether the manuscript addressed COVID-19. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the speed and editor-reported quality of peer reviews in an open-access general medical journal improved modestly during the initial year of the pandemic. Additional study will be necessary to understand how the pandemic has affected reviewer burden and fatigue.

Use of Twitter Amplifiers by Medical Professionals to Combat Misinformation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Social media is an important tool for disseminating accurate medical information and combating misinformation (ie, the spreading of false or inaccurate information) and disinformation (ie, spreading misinformation with the intent to deceive). The prolific rise of inaccurate information during a global pandemic is a pressing public health concern. In response to this phenomenon, health professional amplifiers such as IMPACT (Illinois Medical Professional Action Collaborative Team) have been created as a coordinated response to enhance public communication and advocacy around the COVID-19 pandemic.

Emergency Medicine Influencers' Twitter Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed-methods Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to analyze the messages of influential emergency medicine (EM) Twitter users in the United States (US) during the early stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic by characterizing the themes, emotional tones, temporal viewpoints, and depth of engagement with the tweets. METHODS: We performed a retrospective mixed-methods analysis of publicly available Twitter data derived from the publicly available "Coronavirus Tweet IDs" dataset, March 3, 2020-May 1, 2020. Original tweets and modified retweets in the dataset by 50 influential EM Twitter users in the US were analyzed using linguistic software to report the emotional tone and temporal viewpoint. We qualitatively analyzed a 25% random subsample and report themes. RESULTS: There were 1315 tweets available in the dataset from 36/50 influential EM Twitter users in the US. The majority of tweets were either positive (455/1315, 34.6%) or neutral (407/1315, 31%) in tone and focused on the present (1009/1315, 76.7%). Qualitative analysis identified six distinct themes, with users most often sharing news or clinical information. CONCLUSIONS: During the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, influential EM Twitter users in the US delivered mainly positive or neutral messages, most often pertaining to news stories or information directly relating to patient care. The majority of these messages led to engagement by other users. This study underscores how EM influencers can leverage social media in public health outbreaks to bring attention to topics of importance.