We model the growth of scientific literature related to COVID-19 and forecast the expected growth from 1 June 2021. Considering the significant scientific and financial efforts made by the research community to find solutions to end the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented volume of scientific outputs is being produced. This questions the capacity of scientists, politicians and citizens to maintain infrastructure, digest content and take scientifically informed decisions. A crucial aspect is to make predictions to prepare for such a large corpus of scientific literature. Here we base our predictions on the ARIMA and exponential smoothing models and use two different data sources: the Dimensions and World Health Organization COVID-19 databases. These two sources have the particularity of including in the metadata information on the date in which papers were indexed. We present global predictions, plus predictions in three specific settings: by type of access (Open Access), by NLM source (PubMed and PMC), and by domain-specific repository (SSRN and MedRxiv). We conclude by discussing our findings.

Expert elicitation is deployed when data are absent or uninformative and critical decisions must be made. In designing an expert elicitation, most practitioners seek to achieve best practice while balancing practical constraints. The choices made influence the required time and effort investment, the quality of the elicited data, experts’ engagement, the defensibility of results, and the acceptability of resulting decisions. This piece outlines some of the common choices practitioners encounter when designing and conducting an elicitation. We discuss the evidence supporting these decisions and identify research gaps. This will hopefully allow practitioners to better navigate the literature, and will inspire the expert judgement research community to conduct well powered, replicable experiments that properly address the research gaps identified.