Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 108
Indian J Pediatr ; 90(2): 107-109, 2023 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2242830

Pediatrics , Publishing , Humans , Child
PLoS One ; 18(2): e0281058, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2241760


INTRODUCTION: As part of the Harbnger-2 project, this study aimed to discover the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on junior researchers' work-life, career prospects, research and publishing practices and networking. METHODS: An online international survey of 800 early career researchers (ECRs) was conducted in 2022. A questionnaire was developed based on three rounds of interviews and distributed using multiple channels including publishers, social media, and direct email to ECRs. RESULTS: The impact of the pandemic on career prospects, morale, job security, productivity, ability to network and collaborate, and quality and speed of peer review has on the whole been more negative than positive. A quarter of ECRs shifted their research focus to pandemic-related topics and half of those who did, benefited largely due to increased productivity and impact. The majority worked remotely/from home and more than two-thirds of those who did so benefitted from it. While virtual or hybrid conferences have been embraced by the majority of ECRs, around a third still preferred face-to-face only conferences. The use of library online platforms, Sci-Hub, ResearchGate, Google Scholar and smartphone to search and access full-text papers increased. ECRs prioritised journals with fast submission procedures for the publishing of their papers and spent more time on increasing the visibility of their research. Fees were a problem for publishing open access. CONCLUSION: Although, generally, the pandemic negatively impacted many aspects of ECRs' work-life, certain research areas and individuals benefited from being more appreciated and valued, and, in some cases, resulted in increased resources, better productivity and greater impact. Changes, such as the use of digital technologies and remote working created new opportunities for some ECRs. While continuing work flexibility and hybrid conferences might benefit some ECRs, institutions should also take measures to help those ECRs whose career and productivity have been adversely impacted.

COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Publishing , Research Personnel , Peer Review
Asian J Psychiatr ; 79: 103369, 2023 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2239168
Intern Med J ; 53(1): 6-8, 2023 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2245577
Epidemiol Prev ; 45(6): 449-451, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2239127
Acta Med Port ; 35(12): 853-855, 2022 Dec 02.
Article in Portuguese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2234931
PLoS One ; 17(11): e0277011, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2119146


The COVID-19 pandemic elicited a substantial hike in journal submissions and a global push to get medical evidence quickly through the review process. Editorial decisions and peer-assessments were made under intensified time constraints, which may have amplified social disparities in the outcomes of peer-reviewing, especially for COVID-19 related research. This study quantifies the differential impact of the pandemic on the duration of the peer-review process for women and men and for scientists at different strata of the institutional-prestige hierarchy. Using mixed-effects regression models with observations clustered at the journal level, we analysed newly available data on the submission and acceptance dates of 78,085 medical research articles published in 2019 and 2020. We found that institution-related disparities in the average time from manuscript submission to acceptance increased marginally in 2020, although half of the observed change was driven by speedy reviews of COVID-19 research. For COVID-19 papers, we found more substantial institution-related disparities in review times in favour of authors from highly-ranked institutions. Descriptive survival plots also indicated that scientists with prestigious affiliations benefitted more from fast-track peer reviewing than did colleagues from less reputed institutions. This difference was more pronounced for journals with a single-blind review procedure compared to journals with a double-blind review procedure. Gender-related changes in the duration of the peer-review process were small and inconsistent, although we observed a minor difference in the average review time of COVID-19 papers first authored by women and men.

COVID-19 , Publishing , Female , Humans , Male , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Peer Review , Single-Blind Method
Global Health ; 18(1): 87, 2022 10 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2079513


Globalization has been declared dead or dying for many years, although recently, the number of voices declaring it 'over' has swelled [1]. As editors of a journal interrogating how globalization affects health, we confront the question: Have the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia's war against Ukraine, a breakdown in multilateralism, and the risk of a return to the stagflation of the 1970s finally sounded a death knell for the research and scholarship we have been publishing in the journal's 20-year history? We think not and argue below why, in our post-pandemic fractured and fractious era, it is vitally important to retain a focus on this messy construct short-handed as 'globalization.'

COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , Uncertainty , Pandemics/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Publishing , Internationality
Nat Commun ; 13(1): 5419, 2022 09 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2036819
Trials ; 23(1): 671, 2022 Aug 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1993376


BACKGROUND: The torrent of research during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed the persistent challenges with reporting trials, open science practices, and scholarship in academia. These real-world examples provide unique learning opportunities for research methodologists and clinical epidemiologists-in-training. Dr. David Moher, a recognized expert on the science of research reporting and one of the founders of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, was a guest speaker for the 2021 Hooker Distinguished Visiting Professor Lecture series at McMaster University and shared his insights about these issues. MAIN TEXT: This paper covers a discussion on the influence of reporting guidelines on trials and issues with the use of CONSORT as a measure of quality. Dr. Moher also addresses how the overwhelming body of COVID-19 research reflects the "publish or perish" paradigm in academia and why improvement in the reporting of trials requires policy initiatives from research institutions and funding agencies. We also discuss the rise of publication bias and other questionable reporting practices. To combat this, Dr. Moher believes open science and training initiatives led by institutions can foster research integrity, including the trustworthiness of researchers, institutions, and journals, as well as counter threats posed by predatory journals. He highlights how metrics like journal impact factor and quantity of publications also harm research integrity. Dr. Moher also discussed the importance of meta-science, the study of how research is carried out, which can help to evaluate audit and feedback systems and their effect on open science practices. CONCLUSION: Dr. Moher advocates for policy to further improve the reporting of trials and health research. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed how a lack of open science practices and flawed systems incentivizing researchers to publish can harm research integrity. There is a need for a culture shift in assessing careers and "productivity" in academia, and this requires collaborative top-down and bottom-up approaches.

COVID-19 , Communication , Humans , Pandemics , Publishing , Research Personnel
Ann Palliat Med ; 10(7): 8003-8014, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1390183


BACKGROUND: Infectious disease is ubiquitous and can represent a major threat to human health. Procalcitonin (PCT) is mainly used to identify the severity of bacterial infections, which can be secondary to many non-bacterial infectious diseases. The purpose of this study was to evaluate current research in the field of infectious diseases and to suggest directions for further investigation. METHODS: The Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) database in the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) was used as the search data source. The search parameters including the search scope were limited to "infectious disease" and the search term was "procalcitonin". The time range of the target literature was 1900 to the final search date of this research (May 7, 2021), and the language was limited to English. The full records of the search results and cited references were exported in plain text format, and Citespace software was used to analyze the documents. RESULTS: A total of 996 related research documents were found, and the number increased significantly in 2020. The United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom were the main sources of research, and the main research institutions were Aarhus University Hospital and Harvard University. The main journals are publishing material were Clin Infect Dis, Lancet, and Crit Care Med. Analysis of key words showed that the most common current research topics were sepsis and biomarkers of disease monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Research on infectious disease and the role of PCT is increasing. The main research topics are sepsis and biomarkers for disease monitoring.

Communicable Diseases , Procalcitonin , Bibliometrics , Humans , Publishing , United Kingdom , United States
PLoS One ; 17(6): e0269743, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1902639


The phenomenon of "publish-or-perish" in academia, spurred on by limited funding and academic positions, has led to increased competition and pressure on academics to publish. Publication pressure has been linked with multiple negative outcomes, including increased academic misconduct and researcher burnout. COVID-19 has disrupted research worldwide, leading to lost research time and increased anxiety amongst researchers. The objective of this study was to examine how COVID-19 has impacted perceived publication pressure amongst academic researchers in Canada. We used the revised Publication Pressure Questionnaire, in addition to Likert-type questions to discern respondents' beliefs and concerns about the impact of COVID-19 on academic publishing. We found that publication pressure increased across academic researchers in Canada following the pandemic, with respondents reporting increased stress, increased pessimism, and decreased access to support related to publishing. Doctoral students reported the highest levels of stress and pessimism, while principal investigators had the most access to publication support. There were no significant differences in publication pressure reported between different research disciplines. Women and non-binary or genderfluid respondents reported higher stress and pessimism than men. We also identified differences in perceived publication pressure based on respondents' publication frequency and other demographic factors, including disability and citizenship status. Overall, we document a snapshot of perceived publication pressure in Canada across researchers of different academic career stages and disciplines. This information can be used to guide the creation of researcher supports, as well as identify groups of researchers who may benefit from targeted resources.

COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Publishing , Research Personnel , Surveys and Questionnaires
Am J Surg ; 222(3): 461, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1356123
Adv Skin Wound Care ; 33(9): 455-456, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1310941
Am J Med ; 134(4): 417, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1085985
Nat Biomed Eng ; 5(1): 1-2, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1121709
Br J Surg ; 108(1): e47, 2021 01 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1104810