Scientific sinkhole: estimating the cost of peer review based on survey data with snowball sampling.

BACKGROUND: There are a variety of costs associated with publication of scientific findings. The purpose of this work was to estimate the cost of peer review in scientific publishing per reviewer, per year and for the entire scientific community. METHODS: Internet-based self-report, cross-sectional survey, live between June 28, 2021 and August 2, 2021 was used. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling. No restrictions were placed on geographic location or field of study. Respondents who were asked to act as a peer-reviewer for at least one manuscript submitted to a scientific journal in 2020 were eligible. The primary outcome measure was the cost of peer review per person, per year (calculated as wage-cost x number of initial reviews and number of re-reviews per year). The secondary outcome was the cost of peer review globally (calculated as the number of peer-reviewed papers in Scopus x median wage-cost of initial review and re-review). RESULTS: A total of 354 participants completed at least one question of the survey, and information necessary to calculate the cost of peer-review was available for 308 participants from 33 countries (44% from Canada). The cost of peer review was estimated at $US1,272 per person, per year ($US1,015 for initial review and $US256 for re-review), or US$1.1-1.7 billion for the scientific community per year. The global cost of peer-review was estimated at US$6 billion in 2020 when relying on the Dimensions database and taking into account reviewed-but-rejected manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: Peer review represents an important financial piece of scientific publishing. Our results may not represent all countries or fields of study, but are consistent with previous estimates and provide additional context from peer reviewers themselves. Researchers and scientists have long provided peer review as a contribution to the scientific community. Recognizing the importance of peer-review, institutions should acknowledge these costs in job descriptions, performance measurement, promotion packages, and funding applications. Journals should develop methods to compensate reviewers for their time and improve transparency while maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process.

Telehealth and Medicine Today 2020 Editors Best Article Award ConV2X 2021 Editors Best Telehealth Article Award: ConV2X 2021 Editors Best Telehealth Article Award

Announced during the Telehealth and Medicine Today (THMT) ConV2X 2021 Symposium themed “Blueprint for a New Digital Health Era,” broadcast November 10, 2021, the winning article is titled: "Role of Telemedicine in Healthcare During COVID-19 Pandemic in Developing Countries," authored by Muhammad Abdul Kadir, PhD, Department of Biomedical Physics & Technology from the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. The article presented the highest number of reader engagements with the most downloads, views and highest number of citations to date. To read the open access peer reviwed article go to https://doi.org/10.30953/bhty.v3.134. The work is important because it represents the global bibliodiversity of research content in THMT that is critical in sharing local and global issues with the ecosystem. This supports the dissemination of research results for the benefit of all in society, while simultaneously promoting diversity in research assessment and evaluation from emerging nations. Dr. Kadir commented the reason he selected the Telehealth and Medicine Today (THMT) journal was due to the journal’s timeliness, that it is open access, and that he appreciates THMT's diverse scientific community and reach around the globe – along with the number of citations received to date.

Randomised controlled trial of intravenous nafamostat mesylate in COVID pneumonitis: Phase 1b/2a experimental study to investigate safety, Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.

BACKGROUND: Many repurposed drugs have progressed rapidly to Phase 2 and 3 trials in COVID19 without characterisation of Pharmacokinetics /Pharmacodynamics including safety data. One such drug is nafamostat mesylate. METHODS: We present the findings of a phase Ib/IIa open label, platform randomised controlled trial of intravenous nafamostat in hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonitis. Patients were assigned randomly to standard of care (SoC), nafamostat or an alternative therapy. Nafamostat was administered as an intravenous infusion at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/h for a maximum of seven days. The analysis population included those who received any dose of the trial drug and all patients randomised to SoC. The primary outcomes of our trial were the safety and tolerability of intravenous nafamostat as an add on therapy for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 pneumonitis. FINDINGS: Data is reported from 42 patients, 21 of which were randomly assigned to receive intravenous nafamostat. 86% of nafamostat-treated patients experienced at least one AE compared to 57% of the SoC group. The nafamostat group were significantly more likely to experience at least one AE (posterior mean odds ratio 5.17, 95% credible interval (CI) 1.10 - 26.05) and developed significantly higher plasma creatinine levels (posterior mean difference 10.57 micromol/L, 95% CI 2.43-18.92). An average longer hospital stay was observed in nafamostat patients, alongside a lower rate of oxygen free days (rate ratio 0.55-95% CI 0.31-0.99, respectively). There were no other statistically significant differences in endpoints between nafamostat and SoC. PK data demonstrated that intravenous nafamostat was rapidly broken down to inactive metabolites. We observed no significant anticoagulant effects in thromboelastometry. INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19, we did not observe evidence of anti-inflammatory, anticoagulant or antiviral activity with intravenous nafamostat, and there were additional adverse events. FUNDING: DEFINE was funded by LifeArc (an independent medical research charity) under the STOPCOVID award to the University of Edinburgh. We also thank the Oxford University COVID-19 Research Response Fund (BRD00230).

Managing hematological cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: an ESMO-EHA Interdisciplinary Expert Consensus.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has created enormous challenges for the clinical management of patients with hematological malignancies (HMs), raising questions about the optimal care of this patient group. METHODS: This consensus manuscript aims at discussing clinical evidence and providing expert advice on statements related to the management of HMs in the COVID-19 pandemic. For this purpose, an international consortium was established including a steering committee, which prepared six working packages addressing significant clinical questions from the COVID-19 diagnosis, treatment, and mitigation strategies to specific HMs management in the pandemic. During a virtual consensus meeting, including global experts and lead by the European Society for Medical Oncology and the European Hematology Association, statements were discussed and voted upon. When a consensus could not be reached, the panel revised statements to develop consensual clinical guidance. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The expert panel agreed on 33 statements, reflecting a consensus, which will guide clinical decision making for patients with hematological neoplasms during the COVID-19 pandemic.

One-year follow-up of chest CT findings in patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about the 1-year outcome of COVID-19 is limited. The aim of this study was to follow-up and evaluate lung abnormalities on serial computed tomography (CT) scans in patients with COVID-19 after hospital discharge. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 from the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine was conducted, with assessments of chest CT during hospitalization and at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after hospital discharge. Risk factors of residual CT opacities and the influence of residual CT abnormalities on pulmonary functions at 1 year were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients were followed in this study. Gradual recovery after hospital discharge was confirmed by the serial CT scores. Around 47% of the patients showed residual aberration on pulmonary CT with a median CT score of 0 (interquartile range (IQR) of 0-2) at 1 year after discharge, with ground-glass opacity (GGO) with reticular pattern as the major radiologic pattern. Patients with residual radiological abnormalities were older (p = 0.01), with higher rate in current smokers (p = 0.04), higher rate in hypertensives (p = 0.05), lower SaO2 (p = 0.004), and higher prevalence of secondary bacterial infections during acute phase (p = 0.02). Multiple logistic regression analyses indicated that age was a risk factor associated with residual radiological abnormalities (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.15, p = 0.02). Pulmonary functions of total lung capacity (p = 0.008) and residual volume (p < 0.001) were reduced in patients with residual CT abnormalities and were negatively correlated with CT scores. CONCLUSION: During 1-year follow-up after discharge, COVID-19 survivors showed continuous improvement on chest CT. However, residual lesions could still be observed and correlated with lung volume parameters. The risk of developing residual CT opacities increases with age.

Preprint manuscripts and servers in the era of coronavirus disease 2019.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: To both examine the impact of preprint publishing on health sciences research and survey popular preprint servers amidst the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: The authors queried three biomedical databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) and two preprint servers (MedRxiv and SSRN) to identify literature pertaining to preprints. Additionally, they evaluated 12 preprint servers featuring COVID-19 research through sample submission of six manuscripts. RESULTS: The realm of health sciences research has seen a dramatic increase in the presence and importance of preprint publications. By posting manuscripts on preprint servers, researchers are able to immediately communicate their findings, thereby facilitating prompt feedback and promoting collaboration. In doing so, they may also reduce publication bias and improve methodological transparency. However, by circumventing the peer-review process, academia incurs the risk of disseminating erroneous or misinterpreted data and suffering the downstream consequences. Never have these issues been better highlighted than during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Researchers have flooded the literature with preprint publications as stopgaps to meet the desperate need for knowledge about the disease. These unreviewed articles initially outnumbered those published in conventional journals and helped steer the mainstream scientific community at the start of the pandemic. In surveying select preprint servers, the authors discovered varying usability, review practices, and acceptance polices. CONCLUSION: While vital in the rapid dispensation of science, preprint manuscripts promulgate their conclusions without peer review and possess the capacity to misinform. Undoubtedly part of the future of science, conscientious consumers will need to appreciate not only their utility, but also their limitations.