Pandemic publication: correction and erratum in COVID-19 publications

Moradi, Shima; Abdi, Sahra

doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03787-w

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The other concerns raised by the exceptional magnitude of the phenomenon of huge Covid-19 research are ethical considerations. First of all, the increased speed of publication process and possible lower criteria in the review process, has increased the possibility of errors and retractions, as already investigated by Moradi and Abdi ( 2021 ), Soltani and Patini ( 2020 ) and Yeo-Teh and Tang ( 2020 ). One can also question the effectiveness of such an inflation of publications at a speed no one can follow; the problem for researchers becomes a tough selection choice on what articles to read.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on Covid-19: a disruptive phenomenon for bibliometrics

Fassin

2021

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Covid-19 pandemic has been the highest disruptive event in the world recent history. Worldwide academic research on this topic has led to an explosion of scientific literature, never seen before. Bibliometrics provide methods to illustrate this exceptional phenomenon in academic publications. The objective of this paper is to analyze the Covid-19 research from a bibliometric perspective and to study the impact of the publication explosion on bibliometric indicators. The present study shows how an exceptional phenomenon has a disruptive impact on bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index and the Journal Impact Factor. The higher the specialization, the higher the possible impact of a disruptive phenomenon. In applied sciences, more important than the research or the discipline, the specific theme of the research is crucial for citations of articles and for their impact. The salience of the topic, the magnitude of the problem at study and the urgency to find solutions are drivers for citations. The study of the Covid-19 research illustrates the relativity of indicators and the need for context. The present study also confirms the plead for responsible metrics of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on Covid-19: a disruptive phenomenon for bibliometrics

Fassin

2021

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, some physician specialties were able to provide care via telehealth during the pandemic, while nurses had a direct patient-facing role and may have found changing or conflicting information difficult to integrate with a traumatic or stressful pandemic clinical context. Health care providers have been significantly challenged by keeping abreast of the latest understanding and guidance on COVID-19 clinical practice in the midst of misinformation, a high volume of new scientific information, and errors in or misunderstanding of the latest science [ 25 , 26 ]. Providers have faced the difficult task of integrating evolving, incomplete information into their practice while also needing to take immediate action for their patients and manage potential implications of information changes for their own personal health and safety [ 27 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health Care Providers’ Trusted Sources for Information About COVID-19 Vaccines: Mixed Methods Study

Brauer¹,

Choi²,

Chang³

et al. 2021

JMIR Infodemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Information and opinions shared by health care providers can affect patient vaccination decisions, but little is known about who health care providers themselves trust for information in the context of new COVID-19 vaccines. Objective The purpose of this study is to investigate which sources of information about COVID-19 vaccines are trusted by health care providers and how they communicate this information to patients. Methods This mixed methods study involved a one-time, web-based survey of health care providers and qualitative interviews with a subset of survey respondents. Health care providers (physicians, advanced practice providers, pharmacists, nurses) were recruited from an integrated health system in Southern California using voluntary response sampling, with follow-up interviews with providers who either accepted or declined a COVID-19 vaccine. The outcome was the type of information sources that respondents reported trusting for information about COVID-19 vaccines. Bivariate tests were used to compare trusted information sources by provider type; thematic analysis was used to explore perspectives about vaccine information and communicating with patients about vaccines. Results The survey was completed by 2948 providers, of whom 91% (n=2683) responded that they had received ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The most frequently trusted source of COVID-19 vaccine information was government agencies (n=2513, 84.2%); the least frequently trusted source was social media (n=691, 9.5%). More physicians trusted government agencies (n=1226, 93%) than nurses (n=927, 78%) or pharmacists (n=203, 78%; P<.001), and more physicians trusted their employer (n=1115, 84%) than advanced practice providers (n=95, 67%) and nurses (n=759, 64%; P=.002). Qualitative themes (n=32 participants) about trusted sources of COVID-19 vaccine information were identified: processing new COVID-19 information in a health care work context likened to a “war zone” during the pandemic and communicating information to patients. Some providers were hesitant to recommend vaccines to pregnant people and groups they perceived to be at low risk for COVID-19. Conclusions Physicians have stronger trust in government sources and their employers for information about COVID-19 vaccines compared with nurses, pharmacists, and advanced practice providers. Strategies such as role modeling, tailored messaging, or talking points with standard language may help providers to communicate accurate COVID-19 vaccine information to patients, and these strategies may also be used with providers with lower levels of trust in reputable information sources.

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, another problem that cannot be neglected is the quality of the research that is being done and published during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, scientific publication has become complicated because of the exponential growth of manuscripts related to COVID-19, shortage of experts available for peer review, and the need for rapid publication [ 20 ].Predictably, these problems in the current publication environment have led to the large number of corrections and retractions of published papers [ 21 , 22 ]. The publication of pervasive incorrect data, whether as a result of honest error or misconduct, may result in a major change in the direction of future studies and clinical decision making that can affect patient care.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Most Widely Disseminated COVID-19-Related Scientific Publications in Online Media: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Articles with the Highest Altmetric Attention Scores

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic. This study’s aim was to identify and characterize the top 100 COVID-19-related scientific publications, which had received the highest Altmetric Attention Scores (AASs). Hence, we searched Altmetric Explorer using search terms such as “COVID” or “COVID-19” or “Coronavirus” or “SARS-CoV-2” or “nCoV” and then selected the top 100 articles with the highest AASs. For each article identified, we extracted the following information: the overall AAS, publishing journal, journal impact factor (IF), date of publication, language, country of origin, document type, main topic, and accessibility. The top 100 articles most frequently were published in journals with high (>10.0) IF (n = 67), were published between March and July 2020 (n = 67), were written in English (n = 100), originated in the United States (n = 45), were original articles (n = 59), dealt with treatment and clinical manifestations (n = 33), and had open access (n = 98). Our study provides important information pertaining to the dissemination of scientific knowledge about COVID-19 in online media.

show abstract

Pandemic publication: correction and erratum in COVID-19 publications

Cited by 17 publications

References 23 publications

Research on Covid-19: a disruptive phenomenon for bibliometrics

Research on Covid-19: a disruptive phenomenon for bibliometrics

Health Care Providers’ Trusted Sources for Information About COVID-19 Vaccines: Mixed Methods Study

The Most Widely Disseminated COVID-19-Related Scientific Publications in Online Media: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Articles with the Highest Altmetric Attention Scores

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About