An immunization program against the COVID-19 infodemic

Correia, Luís Cláudio Lemos; Segundo, João de Deus Barreto

doi:10.17267/2675-021xevidence.v2i1.3124

Cited by 6 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our current understanding of the virus, the disease it causes and its pharmacological and non-pharmacological courses of prevention and management are, of course, due to reliable and well-disseminated science. To the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence to support that most fast-tracked studies from 2020 have been wasteful and aimed at self-promotion [2]. Notwithstanding, COVID-19 studies were found to be of worse quality than their prepandemic counterparts [10][11][12][13] and that is an indication that the reward system in science could have been currently skewed towards recognition at the expense of reliability [2].…”

Section: The Appeal Of Press Releases/conferences To Scientistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence to support that most fast-tracked studies from 2020 have been wasteful and aimed at self-promotion [2]. Notwithstanding, COVID-19 studies were found to be of worse quality than their prepandemic counterparts [10][11][12][13] and that is an indication that the reward system in science could have been currently skewed towards recognition at the expense of reliability [2]. On the topic of incentives and recognition, it is worthy mentioning that citation is not a reliable proxy for quality assessment.…”

Section: The Appeal Of Press Releases/conferences To Scientistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome caused by SARS-CoV-2 [1] resulted in a worldwide pandemic and also in a deluge of fast-tracked COVID-19-related scientific publications [2][3][4][5]. Accelerated time from submission to publication [6][7][8] and qualitative changes in the peer review processes [9] could imply lower quality of peer review in COVID-19 research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accelerated time from submission to publication [6][7][8] and qualitative changes in the peer review processes [9] could imply lower quality of peer review in COVID-19 research. Evidence of lower quality of studies during the pandemic has indeed been found [2,[10][11][12]. Meanwhile, data availability practices remained largely unchanged, making claims still very hard to be independently verified [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to the urgency for solutions that the COVID-19 crisis imposed, more efficiency in scientific publication should had been associated with better and more readily available reliable science [14][15][16][17]. Instead, studies carried in the pandemic era proved to be less reliable [2,[10][11][12]18]. In addition, the trend to disseminate scientific findings through press releases and press conferences without immediate simultaneous access to the study has gained traction in 2020 and what was already far from ideal may have turned worse [18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Show me the study! Science by press release is not science

Alves¹,

Segundo²,

Costa³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this brief communication, the authors develop the argument that science by pressrelease and by press conference without the readily available study for scrutiny is outside of the ethos of thescientific enterprise. Additionally, we argue why and how science by press conference and by press release is arecipe for misinformation and poor choices in public health decision-making. Finally, the authors dive into the implications of this emerging phenomenon for publichealth in Brazil in the COVID19 era.

show abstract

Section: The Appeal Of Press Releases/conferences To Scientistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Appeal Of Press Releases/conferences To Scientistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Show me the study! Science by press release is not science

Alves¹,

Segundo²,

Costa³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Progressive and degenerative journals: on the growth and appraisal of knowledge in scholarly publishing

Dunleavy

2022

Euro Jnl Phil Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite continued attention, finding adequate criteria for distinguishing "good" from "bad" scholarly journals remains an elusive goal. In this essay, I propose a solution informed by the work of Imre Lakatos and his methodology of scientific research programmes (MSRP). I begin by reviewing several notable attempts at appraising journal quality -focusing primarily on the impact factor and development of journal blacklists and whitelists. In doing so, I note their limitations and link their overarching goals to those found within the philosophy of science. I argue that Lakatos's MSRP and specifically his classifications of "progressive" and "degenerative" research programmes can be analogized and repurposed for the evaluation of scholarly journals. I argue that this alternative framework resolves some of the limitations discussed above and offers a more considered evaluation of journal quality -one that helps account for the historical evolution of journal-level publication practices and attendant contributions to the growth (or stunting) of scholarly knowledge. By doing so, the seeming problem of journal demarcation is diminished. In the process I utilize two novel tools (the mistake index and scite index) to further illustrate and operationalize aspects of the MSRP.

show abstract

Evidence on the role of journal editors in the COVID19 infodemic: metascientific study analyzing COVID19 publication rates and patterns

Grisi

Segundo

Freire

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Infodemic, a neologism characterizing an excess of fast-tracked low quality publications, has been employed to depict the scientific research response to the COVID19 crisis. The concept relies on the presumed exponential growth of research output. This study aimed to test the COVID19 infodemic claim by assessing publication rates and patterns of COVID19-related research and a control, a year prior. Design: A Reproduction Number of Publications (Rp) was conceived. It was conceptualized as a division of a week incidence of publications by the average of publications of the previous week. The publication growth rates of preprint and MEDLINE-indexed peer-reviewed literature on COVID19 were compared using the correspondent Influenza output, a year prior, as control. Rp for COVID19 and Influenza papers and preprints were generated and compared and then analyzed in light of the respective growth patterns of their papers and preprints. Main outcomes: Output growth rates and Reproduction Number of Publications (Rp). Results: COVID19 peer-reviewed papers showed a fourteen fold increase compared to Influenza papers. COVID19 papers and preprints displayed an exponential growth curve until the 20th week. COVID19 papers displayed Rp=3.17±0.72, while the control group presented Rp=0.97±0.12. Their preprints exhibited Rp=2.18±0.54 and Rp=0.97±0.27 respectively, with no evidence of exponential growth in the control group, as its Rp remained approximately one. Conclusions: COVID19 publications displayed an epidemic pattern. As the growth patterns of COVID19 peer-reviewed articles and preprints were similar, and the majority of the COVID19 output came from indexed journals, not only authors but also editors appear to had played a significant part on the infodemic. Review protocol: https://osf.io/q3zkw/?view_only=ff540dc4630b4c6e9a2639d732047324 Ethical aspects: No ethical clarence was required as all analyzed data were publicly available.

show abstract

An immunization program against the COVID-19 infodemic

Cited by 6 publications

References 12 publications

Show me the study! Science by press release is not science

Show me the study! Science by press release is not science

Progressive and degenerative journals: on the growth and appraisal of knowledge in scholarly publishing

Evidence on the role of journal editors in the COVID19 infodemic: metascientific study analyzing COVID19 publication rates and patterns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About