"Tortured phrases" in preprints.

This commentary takes note of the existence of "tortured phrases" (i.e. unspecific jargon or confusing alternative phrases), as indexed in the Tortured Phrases Detector of the Problematic Paper Screener (PPS) (sourced on January 10, 2023) in 213 preprints, 13 of which are related to COVID-19. Select "tortured phrases" in 11 preprints are highlighted, to offer readers an appreciation of this phenomenon. The incorrect representation of jargon in the medical and health literature may risk confusing readers by reducing the impact of effective and precise communication. Whereas some "tortured phrases" might represent simple mistranslations, in other cases, an abundance of such terms in a single preprint might reveal a more serious ethical issue, such as the undeclared use of a paper mill or an unprofessional editing service. This commentary is thus only a spring-board to introduce this linguistic phenomenon and to encourage interested academics to explore more cases, the practical implications of their existence, and even the weaknesses and strengths of PPS. Caution is needed about excessive extrapolation of the existence of "tortured phrases", so as not to automatically associate them with ethical infractions or misconduct.

Evidence-based policies in public health to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

A fundamental basis for effective health-related policymaking of any democratic nation should be open and transparent communication between a government and its citizens, including scientists and healthcare professionals, to foster a climate of trust, especially during the ongoing COVID-19 mass vaccination campaign. Since misinformation is a leading cause of vaccine hesitancy, open data sharing through an evidence-based approach may render the communication of health strategies developed by policymakers with the public more effective, allowing misinformation and claims that are not backed by scientific evidence to be tackled. In this narrative review, we debate possible causes of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and links to the COVID-19 misinformation epidemic. We also put forward plausible solutions as recommended in the literature.

Safety & effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: A narrative review.

There are currently eight vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 that have received Emergency Use Authorization by the WHO that can offer some protection to the world's population during the COVID-19 pandemic. Though research is being published all over the world, public health officials, policymakers and governments are collecting evidence-based information to establish the public health policies. Unfortunately, continued international travel, violations of lockdowns and social distancing, the lack of mask use, the emergence of mutant strains of the virus and lower adherence by a sector of the global population that remains sceptical of the protection offered by vaccines, or about any risks associated with vaccines, hamper these efforts. Here we examine the literature on the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, with an emphasis on select categories of individuals and against new SARS-CoV-2 strains. The literature shows that these eight vaccines are highly effective in protecting the population from severe disease and death, but there are some issues concerning safety and adverse effects. Further, booster shots and variant-specific vaccines would also be required.

Adjusting the use of preprints to accommodate the 'quality' factor in response to COVID-19.

Preprints are typically crude precursors of peer-reviewed papers that are placed almost immediately, save for some superficial screening, on an open-access repository to allow the information to reach readers quickly, circumventing the long-drawn process typically associated with processing in peer-reviewed journals. For early-career researchers who might be enthusiastic about obtaining some recognition for their efforts, or wanting open and public input about their work, preprints are certainly a useful publication choice. However, if health-related data and information have not been carefully scrutinised, they may pose a risk and may even serve as a source of public health misinformation. Surging growth and competition among preprint servers, coupled with a massive volume of COVID-19-related preprints, mainly on bioRxiv and medRxiv, as well as select indexing now being tested on PubMed, suggests that preprints are being increasingly used in the biomedical sciences. Stronger and more robust ethical policies are needed to screen preprints before they are released to the public, and even if this implies a slight delay in publication, it may increase academics' trust in this form of scientific information and communication. Clear and stringent ethical policies need to be urgently introduced by ethics groups such as COPE and the ICMJE, whose many member journals allow preprints to be posted before traditional peer review. Stringent ethical guidelines that treat misconduct equally in preprints and peer-reviewed papers will boost the integrity of academic publishing.

Corona exhaustion (CORONEX): COVID-19-induced exhaustion grinding down humanity

The constant presence and reminder of COVID-19, as well as persistent measures to control, test, measure or otherwise monitor this pandemic are taking an eroding psychological toll on the global population, even as select populations begin to receive a vaccine. This daily “presence” is exhausting humanity in ways akin to times of war or extreme financial strife, and its long-term impact on human mental health is referred to in this paper as CORONEX, or exhaustion caused by the coronavirus, in this case COVID-19. This term is based on broad observations, but not on clinical data. Prolonged fear, insecurities, and radical changes to lifestyles can erode psychological defenses while fortifying mental frailties. Particularly vulnerable to both health and mental health impacts of COVID-19 are older individuals, those with pre-existing conditions, minorities, and healthcare workers. Even with vaccines, COVID-19-induced fatigue (CORONEX) will likely continue in the foreseeable future as humanity learns to coexist with this pandemic. Suitable and robust economic, psycho-emotive and healthcare support structures are needed for those that survive, even more so for communities living in under-privileged conditions.

Optimizing peer review to minimize the risk of retracting COVID-19-related literature.

Retractions of COVID-19 literature in both preprints and the peer-reviewed literature serve as a reminder that there are still challenging issues underlying the integrity of the biomedical literature. The risks to academia become larger when such retractions take place in high-ranking biomedical journals. In some cases, retractions result from unreliable or nonexistent data, an issue that could easily be avoided by having open data policies, but there have also been retractions due to oversight in peer review and editorial verification. As COVID-19 continues to affect academics and societies around the world, failures in peer review might also constitute a public health risk. The effectiveness by which COVID-19 literature is corrected, including through retractions, depends on the stringency of measures in place to detect errors and to correct erroneous literature. It also relies on the stringent implementation of open data policies.

Publishing volumes in major databases related to Covid-19.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes Covid-19, induced a global pandemic for which an effective cure, either in the form of a drug or vaccine, has yet to be discovered. In the few brief months that the world has known Covid-19, there has been an unprecedented volume of papers published related to this disease, either in a bid to find solutions, or to discuss applied or related aspects. Data from Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, and Elsevier's Scopus, which do not index preprints, were assessed. Our estimates indicate that 23,634 unique documents, 9960 of which were in common to both databases, were published between January 1 and June 30, 2020. Publications include research articles, letters, editorials, notes and reviews. As one example, amongst the 21,542 documents in Scopus, 47.6% were research articles, 22.4% were letters, and the rest were reviews, editorials, notes and other. Based on both databases, the top three countries, ranked by volume of published papers, are the USA, China, and Italy while BMJ, Journal of Medical Virology and The Lancet published the largest number of Covid-19-related papers. This paper provides one snapshot of how the publishing landscape has evolved in the first six months of 2020 in response to this pandemic and discusses the risks associated with the speed of publications.

Policy determinants of COVID-19 pandemic-induced fatality rates across nations.

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the most devastating pandemic to affect humanity in a century. In this article, we assessed tests as a policy instrument and policy enactment to contain COVID-19 and potentially reduce mortalities. STUDY DESIGN: A model was devised to estimate the factors that influenced the death rate across 121 nations and by income group. RESULTS: Nations with a higher proportion of people aged 65+ years had a higher fatality rate (P = 0.00014). Delaying policy enactment led to a higher case fatality rate (P = 0.0013). A 10% delay time to act resulted in a 3.7% higher case fatality rate. This study found that delaying policies for international travel restrictions, public information campaigns, and testing policies increased the fatality rate. Tests also impacted the case fatality rate, and nations with 10% more cumulative tests per million people showed a 2.8% lower mortality rate. Citizens of nations who can access more destinations without the need to have a prior visa have a significant higher mortality rate than those who need a visa to travel abroad (P = 0.0040). CONCLUSION: Tests, as a surrogate of policy action and earlier policy enactment, matter for saving lives from pandemics as such policies reduce the transmission rate of the pandemic.

Smoking Prevalence and COVID-19 in Europe.

INTRODUCTION: This ecological study investigates the association between smoking prevalence and COVID-19 occurrence and mortality in 38 European nations as of May 30, 2020. METHODS: Data were collected from Our World in Data. Regression analysis was conducted to adjust for potential confounding factors such as economic activity (gross domestic product), the rate of COVID-19 testing, and the stringency of COVID-19 control policies. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant negative association between smoking prevalence and the prevalence of COVID-19 across the 38 European nations after controlling for confounding factors (p = 0.001). A strong association was found between the prevalence of COVID-19 per million people and economic activity (p = 0.002) and the rate of COVID-19 testing (p = 0.0006). Nations with stricter policy enactment showed fewer COVID-19 cases per million people, but the association was not significant (p = 0.122). Delaying policy enactment was associated with a greater prevalence of COVID-19 (p = 0.0535). Evidence of a direct association between smoking prevalence and COVID-19 mortality was not found (p = 0.626). There was a strong positive association between COVID-19 mortality rate and the prevalence of COVID-19 cases (p < 0.0001) as well as the proportion of the population over 65 years of age (p = 0.0034) and a negative association with the rate of COVID-19 testing (p = 0.0023). CONCLUSIONS: We found a negative association between smoking prevalence and COVID-19 occurrence at the population level in 38 European countries. This association may not imply a true or causal relationship, and smoking is not advocated as a prevention or treatment of COVID-19. IMPLICATIONS: Given the evidence of this ecological study, and of several other studies that found an underrepresentation of smoking prevalence in hospitalized cases, it may be worth examining, in laboratory experiments and controlled human trials, if nicotine offers any protection against COVID-19. Most importantly, to date, no study, including this one, supports the view that smoking acts as a treatment intervention or prophylaxis to reduce the impact or ameliorate the negative health impacts of COVID-19.

An Alert to COVID-19 Literature in Predatory Publishing Venues.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to a flood of papers and preprints, has placed multiple challenges on academic publishing, the most obvious one being sustained integrity under the pressure to publish quickly. There are risks of this high volume-to-speed ratio. Many letters, editorials, and supposedly "peer reviewed" papers in ranked and indexed journals were published in a matter of days, suggesting that peer review was either fleeting or non-existential, or that papers were rapidly approved by editors based on their perceived interest and topicality, rather than on their intrinsic academic value. In academic publishing circles, the claim of "peer review", when in fact it has not been conducted, is a core characteristic of "predatory publishing", and is also a "fake" element that may undermine efforts in recent years to build trust in science's budding serials crisis. While the world is still centrally focused on COVID-19, the issue of "predatory publishing" is being ignored, or not being given sufficient attention. The risks to the scholarly community, academic publishing and ultimately public health are at stake when exploitative and predatory publishing are left unchallenged.