When science goes viral: The research response during three months of the COVID-19 outbreak

Nowakowska, Joanna; Sobocińska, Joanna; Lewicki, Mateusz; Lemańska, Żaneta; Rzymski, Piotr

doi:10.1016/j.biopha.2020.110451

Cited by 77 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Many also appear in the field of economics due to the severe financial consequences of the virus. The ongoing scientific contributions confirm that the academic response to COVID-19 is both massive and multifaceted ( Bonilla-Aldana et al, 2020 ; Felice and Polimeni, 2020 ; Nowakowska et al, 2020 ). A revealing fact in this regard is that since the pandemic's outset, the number of scientific papers on COVID-19 have doubled every 15 days ( Torres-Salinas, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…The first, applied by academics from various branches, consists of carrying out comprehensive reviews and bibliometric analyses so as to synthesize and simplify the results. This is the case, for example, of the bibliometric survey by Nowakowska et al (2020) attempting to identify, based on the systematic analysis of 2062 peer-reviewed and pre-print papers, the main subjects, authors and nationalities of COVID-19 articles published within the first three months of pandemic. Felice and Polimeni (2020) , adopting a similar approach, distinguished the main affiliations, authors, journals and collaborative links of COVID-19 papers between December 2019 and April 2020.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analysis of the scientific production of the effect of COVID-19 on the environment: A bibliometric study

Casado‐Aranda

Sánchez‐Fernández

Viedma-del-Jesús

2021

Environmental Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fight against COVID-19 since January 2020 has become the top priority of more than 200 countries. In order to offer solutions to eradicate this global pandemic, the scientific community has published hundreds of articles covering a wide range of areas of knowledge. With the aim of synthesizing these publications, academics are resorting to bibliometric analyses from the perspectives of the disciplines such as biology, medicine, socioeconomics and tourism. Yet no bibliometric analysis has explored the diffuse and little-known growth of COVID-19 scientific publications in the field of environmental studies. The current study is the first of this type to fill this research gap. It has resorted to SciMAT software to evaluate the main topics, authors and journals of publications on the subject of COVID-19 combined with environmental studies spanning the period between 1 December 2019 and 6 September 2020. The search yielded a collection of 440 articles published in scientific journals indexed on by Web of Science and Scopus databases. These publications can be broken down into six main themes: (i) a sharp reduction in air pollution and an improvement of the level of water pollution; (ii) the relationship of wind speed (positive), ultraviolet radiation (positive) and humidity (negative) with the rate of infections; (iii) the effect of the pandemic on the food supply chain and waste habits; (iv) wastewater monitoring offers a great potential as an early warning sign of COVID-19 transmission; (v) artificial intelligence and smart devices can be of great use in monitoring citizen mobilization; and (vi) the lessons gleaned from the pandemic that help define actions to mitigate climate change. The results of the current study therefore offer an agenda for future research and constitute a starting point for academics in the field of environmental studies to evaluate the effects of COVID-19.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the scientific production of the effect of COVID-19 on the environment: A bibliometric study

Casado‐Aranda

Sánchez‐Fernández

Viedma-del-Jesús

2021

Environmental Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, the choice of phrases and terms related to mental health and each of the outbreaks was exhaustive. Unlike prior analyses of the scientific literature on coronaviruses, ours did not limit to records in English ( Liu et al, 2020 ; Nowakowska et al, 2020 ; Tao et al, 2020 ; Zhai et al, 2020 ) or English and Chinese only ( Yu et al, 2020 ). We additionally extracted records from more than two databases ( Haghani et al, 2020 ; Liu et al, 2020 ) and included editorials, commentaries, letters, case reports, news, and narrative reviews ( Liu et al, 2020 ; Yu et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently published bibliometric analyses either looked at research output on various scientific and medical topics of all coronavirus outbreaks including the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) ( Bonilla-Aldana et al, 2020 ; Haghani et al, 2020 ; Liu et al, 2020 ; Tao et al, 2020 ; Yu et al, 2020 ; Zhai et al, 2020 ) or were limited to the current COVID-19 pandemic overall ( De Felice and Polimeni, 2020 ; Nowakowska et al, 2020 ). Our study is unique in that it examined an underexplored area in the COVID-19 research ( Liu et al, 2020 ), namely, the trend in mental health research, and compared the findings with two prior distinct viral outbreaks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the time lag between the first studies on all three outbreaks in general and the first studies on mental health aspects of the outbreaks in particular, research output in the latter area follows an upward trend similar to that of other research areas. Indeed, previous bibliometric analyses found increased output in microbiological, epidemiological, and clinical research of coronaviruses that peaked one to two years following SARS and MERS outbreaks ( Haghani et al, 2020 ; Nowakowska et al, 2020 ; Tao et al, 2020 ). The gradual increase in mental health research over time is important for all pandemics, particularly COVID-19, given the dire need for generating evidence to guide best practices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mental health research in response to the COVID-19, Ebola, and H1N1 outbreaks: A comparative bibliometric analysis

Maalouf

Mdawar

Meho

et al. 2021

Journal of Psychiatric Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Both the COVID-19 pandemic and its management have had a negative impact on mental health worldwide. There is a growing body of research on mental health as it relates to the pandemic. The objective of this study is to use bibliometric analyses to assess the mental health research output related to the COVID-19 pandemic and compare it to that of the West Africa Ebola and H1N1 outbreaks. Methodology We performed comprehensive searches in Embase, PubMed, and Scopus databases, and included all types of documents related to the three outbreaks published since the respective beginnings up to August 26, 2020. Results Despite the shorter time since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, relative to Ebola and H1N1, we found a much greater number of mental health documents related to COVID-19 (n=3,070) compared to the two other outbreaks (127 for Ebola and 327 for H1N1). The proportion of documents in the top 10% journals was 31% for COVID-19, 24% for Ebola, and 40% for H1N1. Authors affiliated with institutions located in high-income countries published or contributed to 79% of all documents followed by authors from upper-middle-income countries (23%), lower-middle-income countries (10%), and low-income countries (2%). Approximately 19% of the documents reported receiving funding and 23% were the product of international collaboration. Conclusion Mental health research output is already greater for COVID-19 compared to Ebola and H1N1 combined. A minority of documents reported funding, was the product of international collaboration, or was published by authors located in low-income countries during the three outbreaks in general, and the COVID-19 pandemic in particular.

show abstract

Evaluation of the comprehensiveness, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production

Metzendorf

Featherstone

2021

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register (CCSR) is a public, continually updated database of COVID‐19 study references. The aim of this study‐based register is to support rapid and living evidence synthesis, including an evidence ecosystem of COVID‐19 research (CEOsys). In November and December 2020 we conducted an evaluation of the CCSR for CEOsys, measured its performance and identified areas for improvement. Methods For the evaluation we generated a purposive sample of 286 studies from 20 reviews to calculate the CCSR's comprehensiveness (sensitivity), accuracy (correctly classified and linked studies) and currency (time to publish and process references). Results Our sample showed that the CCSR had an overall comprehensiveness of 77.2%, with the highest coverage for interventional studies (94.4%). The study register had 100% coverage for trial registry records, 86.5% for journal articles and 52.4% for preprints. 98.3% of references were correctly classified with regard to study type, and 93.4% with regard to study aim. 89% of studies were correctly linked. 81.4% of references were published to the register in under 30 days, with 0.5 day (median) for trial registry records, 2 days for journal articles and 56 days for preprints. Conclusion The CCSR had high comprehensiveness, accurate study classifications and short publishing times for journal articles and trial registry records in the sample. We identified that coverage and publishing time for preprints needed improvement. Finally, the evaluation illustrated the value of a study‐based register for identifying additional study references for analysis in evidence synthesis.

show abstract

When science goes viral: The research response during three months of the COVID-19 outbreak

Cited by 77 publications

References 48 publications

Analysis of the scientific production of the effect of COVID-19 on the environment: A bibliometric study

Analysis of the scientific production of the effect of COVID-19 on the environment: A bibliometric study

Mental health research in response to the COVID-19, Ebola, and H1N1 outbreaks: A comparative bibliometric analysis

Evaluation of the comprehensiveness, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About