The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape

Lessons from COVID-19 for managing transboundary climate risks and building resilience

COVID-19 has revealed how challenging it is to manage global, systemic and compounding crises. Like COVID-19, climate change impacts, and maladaptive responses to them, have potential to disrupt societies at multiple scales via networks of trade, finance, mobility and communication, and to impact hardest on the most vulnerable. However, these complex systems can also facilitate resilience if managed effectively. This review aims to distil lessons related to the transboundary management of systemic risks from the COVID-19 experience, to inform climate change policy and resilience building. Evidence from diverse fields is synthesised to illustrate the nature of systemic risks and our evolving understanding of resilience. We describe research methods that aim to capture systemic complexity to inform better management practices and increase resilience to crises. Finally, we recommend specific, practical actions for improving transboundary climate risk management and resilience building. These include mapping the direct, cross-border and cross-sectoral impacts of potential climate extremes, adopting adaptive risk management strategies that embrace heterogenous decision-making and uncertainty, and taking a broader approach to resilience which elevates human wellbeing, including societal and ecological resilience.

Advancing child health and educational equity during the COVID-19 pandemic through science and advocacy

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the changing role of scientists, clinicians, ethicists, and educators in advocacy as they rapidly translate their findings to inform practice and policy. Critical efforts have been directed towards understanding child well-being, especially with pandemic-related educational disruptions. While school closures were part of early widespread public health measures to curb the spread of COVID-19, they have not been without consequences for all children, and especially for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. In a recent Isr J Health Policy Res perspective, Paltiel and colleagues demonstrate the integral role of academic activism to promote child well-being during the pandemic by highlighting work of the multidisciplinary academic group on children and coronavirus (MACC). In this commentary, we explore parallels to MACC’s work in an international context by describing the efforts of a multidisciplinary team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, United States, to aggregate data, conduct analyses, and offer training tools intended to minimize health and educational inequities for children throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. As both MACC and our work collectively demonstrates, multidisciplinary partnerships and public-facing data-driven initiatives are crucial to advocating for children's equitable access to quality health and education. This will likely not be the last pandemic that children experience in their lifetime. As such, efforts should be made to apply the lessons learned during the current pandemic to strengthen multidisciplinary academic-public partnerships which will continue to play a critical role in the future.

“There’s no money in community dissemination”: A mixed methods analysis of researcher dissemination-as-usual

Background:

The field of dissemination and implementation science has the potential to narrow the translational research-to-practice gap and improve the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) within community-based settings. Yet, foundational research related to dissemination efforts, such as understanding researcher attitudes, practices, and the determinants to sharing research findings, is lacking within extant literature.

Methods:

A sequential explanatory (QUAN $$ \to $$ qual) mixed methods design was used to examine 85 academic researchers’ perspectives and self-reported dissemination methods used to share research outcomes with community stakeholders to better understand researcher’s usual dissemination practices (referred to as dissemination-as-usual). Quantitative surveys collected researcher demographic data, attitudes toward dissemination efforts, and dissemination strategy use.

Results:

Multiple linear regression examined predictors of the quantity of dissemination strategies utilized by researchers, finding that years since earning their degree, time spent disseminating, and the number of reasons for engaging in dissemination efforts predicted greater numbers of dissemination strategies utilized by researchers. Individual, semi-structured interviews with a subset of researchers (n = 18) expanded upon quantitative findings, identifying barriers and facilitators to their dissemination efforts. Data strands were integrated using a joint display, and the Dissemination of Research model guided data interpretation. More established researchers experienced fewer barriers and more facilitators to support their use of a variety of dissemination strategies to share findings with community stakeholders. However, researchers reported needing specific training, institutional support, and/or dedicated time to plan and enact dissemination strategies.

Conclusion:

The necessary first step in research translation is the dissemination of research evidence, and understanding dissemination-as-usual can identify areas of need to advance translational science.

Infection Units: A Novel Approach for Modeling COVID-19 Spread

A novel mechanistic model of COVID-19 spread is presented. The pool of infected individuals is not homogeneously mixed but is viewed as a passage into which individuals enter upon the contagion, through which they pass (in the manner of “plug flow”) and exit at their recovery points within a fixed time. Our novel concept of infection unit is defined. The model separately considers various population pools: two of symptomatic and asymptomatic infected patients; three different pools of recovered individuals; of assisted hospitalized patients; of the quarantined; and of those who die from COVID-19. Transmission of this disease is described by an infection rate function, modulated by an encounter frequency function. This definition makes redundant the addition of a separate pool for the exposed, as done in several other models. Simulations are presented. The effects of social restrictions and of quarantine policies on pandemic spread are demonstrated. The model differs conceptually from others of the kind in the description of the transmission dynamics of the disease. A set of experimental data is used to calibrate our model, which predicts the dynamic behavior of each of the defined pools during pandemic spread.

Results dissemination from completed clinical trials conducted at German university medical centers remained delayed and incomplete. The 2014-2017 cohort

OBJECTIVE

Timely publication of clinical trial results is central for evidence-based medicine. In this follow-up study we benchmark the performance of German university medical centers (UMCs) regarding timely dissemination of clinical trial results in recent years.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Following the same search and tracking methods used in our previous study for the years 2009 - 2013, we identified trials led by German UMCs completed between 2014 and 2017 and tracked results dissemination for the identified trials.

RESULTS

We identified 1,658 trials in the 2014-2017 cohort. Of these trials, 43% published results as either journal publication or summary results within 24 months after completion date, which is an improvement of 3.8% percentage points compared to the previous study. At the UMC level, the proportion published after 24 months ranged from 14% to 71%. Five years after completion, 30% of the trials still remained unpublished.

CONCLUSION

Despite minor improvements compared to the previously investigated cohort, the proportion of timely reported trials led by German UMCs remains low. German UMCs should take further steps to improve the proportion of timely reported trials.

Personal observations on COVID-19 and the conduct and application of biomedical science

We begin by describing our observations of the ways in which the conduct of research has changed during the COVID-19 pandemic and go on to comment on the quality of the scientific advice that is provided to UK citizens, and especially to schools. Researchers, like many, have suffered from the effects of the pandemic. Those hardships notwithstanding, we suggest that research into COVID-19 has benefitted from a 'seed corn' of discovery science that has provided the basis for routine diagnostic PCR and antibody tests; for structural analyses of the way in which the SARS-CoV-2 virus interacts with cells; for the development of new treatments (and the debunking of ineffective ones); for studies of the genetics of susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2; and for the development of vaccines. The speed of dissemination of research has benefitted from the widespread use of pre-prints, and researchers and funders have become more nimble in their approaches to research and more willing to change their priorities in the face of the pandemic. In our experience, the advice provided to schools on the basis of this research was, however, often published at the last minute and was frequently flawed or inconsistent. This has led to a widening of the attainment gap between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers and it has exacerbated the digital divide and holiday hunger. The consequences will be felt for many years to come and will jeopardize diversity in research and other careers.

Reproducibility of Research During COVID-19: Examining the Case of Population Density and the Basic Reproductive Rate from the Perspective of Spatial Analysis

The emergence of the novel SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and the global COVID-19 pandemic in 2019 led to explosive growth in scientific research. Alas, much of the research in the literature lacks conditions to be reproducible, and recent publications on the association between population density and the basic reproductive number of SARS-CoV-2 are no exception. Relatively few papers share code and data sufficiently, which hinders not only verification but additional experimentation. In this article, an example of reproducible research shows the potential of spatial analysis for epidemiology research during COVID-19. Transparency and openness means that independent researchers can, with only modest efforts, verify findings and use different approaches as appropriate. Given the high stakes of the situation, it is essential that scientific findings, on which good policy depends, are as robust as possible; as the empirical example shows, reproducibility is one of the keys to ensure this.

[Clinical studies in trauma surgery and orthopedics: read, interpret and implement]

Für eine informierte, partizipative ärztliche Entscheidungsfindung müssen Sie neben Ihrem Erfahrungswissen aktuelle wissenschaftliche Daten berücksichtigen. Die digitale Informationsflut macht es im klinischen Alltag allerdings schwer, immer auf dem Stand des Wissens zu bleiben. Der Beitrag bietet einige Hilfen an, wie mit diesem Problem umgegangen werden kann. Ein grundlegendes Verständnis über Vor- und Nachwahrscheinlichkeiten sowie systematische Fehler (Bias) erleichtert die Abwägung zwischen Nutzen und Risiko z. B. einer (chirurgischen) Intervention im Vergleich zu einer nichtoperativen Therapie. Randomisierte Studien („randomized controlled trials“, RCT, mit allen modernen Modifikationen) liefern unverzerrte Ergebnisse, führen in Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie evtl. zu einer stark selektierten, nichtrepräsentativen Stichprobe, und ihre Resultate müssen durch weitere, unabhängige RCT bestätigt oder widerlegt werden. Große beobachtende Datenmengen (z. B. aus Registern) können quasiexperimentell modelliert werden und RCT in der Gesundheitstechnologiebewertung flankieren.

Ethical issues and public communication in the development of cell-based treatments for COVID-19: Lessons from the pandemic

The significant morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) prompted a global race to develop new therapies. These include interventions using cell- or cell-derived products, several of which are being tested in well-designed, properly controlled clinical trials. Yet, the search for cell-based COVID-19 treatments has also been fraught with hyperbolic claims; flouting of crucial regulatory, scientific, and ethical norms; and distorted communication of research findings. In this paper, we critically examine ethical issues and public communication challenges related to the development of cell-based therapeutics for COVID-19. Drawing on the lessons learned from this ongoing process, we argue against the rushed development of cell-based interventions. We conclude by outlining ways to improve the ethical conduct of cell-based clinical investigations and public communication of therapeutic claims.

A Review of the Scientific Contributions of Nepal on COVID-19

Purpose of Review

There has been a high influx of publications on the SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 worldwide in the recent few months as very little was known about them. Nepal too had a substantial number of publications on the same, and there was a need to track the most relevant and impactful to the scientific community through bibliometric analysis.

Recent Findings

A total of 72 publications were analyzed. Bagmati Pradesh (88%) and its district, Kathmandu (77%), was with the most publications. There were no publications from Gandaki and Karnali Province. Most of the publications were in the international medical journals (82%), 53% chose European journals to publish, and 15.27% were related to and published in psychology journals. The majority were original articles (39%) and mostly related to public health (20.83%). 59.7% of the papers had Nepalese as the first author. Most of them were affiliated with Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital and Patan Academy of Health Sciences.

Summary

Our analysis suggests a need to shift the type of studies from observational studies to studies oriented more towards the therapeutic and clinical trials of available medicines and patient care management. Similarly, the bibliometric analysis gives an overall picture of Nepali medical research’s publication status around the globe.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Emerging Variants: Evidence from Six Countries

As the world tries to cope with the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and emerging variants of the virus, COVID-19 vaccination has become an even more critical tool toward normalcy. The effectiveness of the vaccination program and specifically vaccine uptake and coverage, however, is a function of an individual's knowledge and individual opinion about the disease and available vaccines. This study investigated the knowledge, attitudes, and resulting community practice(s) associated with the new COVID-19 variants and vaccines in Bangladesh, Colombia, India, Malaysia, Zimbabwe, and the USA. A cross-sectional web-based Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) survey was administered to respondents living in six different countries using a structured and multi-item questionnaire. Survey questions were translated into English, Spanish, and Malay to accommodate the local language in each country. Associations between KAP and a range of explanatory variables were assessed using univariate and multiple logistic regression. A total of 781 responses were included in the final analysis. The Knowledge score mean was 24 (out of 46), Attitude score 28.9 (out of 55), and Practice score 7.3 (out of 11). Almost 65% of the respondents reported being knowledgeable about COVID-19 variants and vaccination, 55% reported a positive attitude toward available COVID-19 vaccines, and 85% reported engaging in practices that supported COVID-19 vaccination. From the multiple logistic models, we found post-graduate education (AOR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.23-2.74) and an age range 45-54 years (AOR = 5.81, 95% CI: 2.30-14.69) to be significantly associated with reported COVID-19 knowledge. In addition, positive Attitude scores were associated with respondents living in Zimbabwe (AOR = 4.49, 95% CI: 2.04-9.90) and positive Practice scores were found to be associated with people from India (AOR = 3.68, 95% CI: 1.15-11.74) and high school education (AOR = 2.16, 95% CI: 1.07-4.38). This study contributes to the identification of socio-demographic factors associated with poor knowledge, attitudes, and practices relating to COVID-19 variants and vaccines. It presents an opportunity for collaboration with diverse communities to address COVID-19 misinformation and common sources of vaccine hesitancy (i.e., knowledge, attitudes, and practices).

Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unusually high submission rate of scholarly articles. Given that most academics were forced to work from home, the competing demands for familial duties may have penalized the scientific productivity of women. To test this hypothesis, we looked at submitted manuscripts and peer review activities for all Elsevier journals between February and May 2018-2020, including data on over 5 million authors and referees. Results showed that during the first wave of the pandemic, women submitted proportionally fewer manuscripts than men. This deficit was especially pronounced among more junior cohorts of women academics. The rate of the peer-review invitation acceptance showed a less pronounced gender pattern with women taking on a greater service responsibility for journals, except for health & medicine, the field where the impact of COVID-19 research has been more prominent. Our findings suggest that the first wave of the pandemic has created potentially cumulative advantages for men.

COVIDium: a COVID-19 resource compendium

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disrupted the normal functioning throughout the world since early 2020 and it continues to do so. Nonetheless, the global pandemic was taken up as a challenge by researchers across the globe to discover an effective cure, either in the form of a drug or vaccine. This resulted in an unprecedented surge of experimental and computational data and publications, which often translated their findings in the form of databases (DBs) and tools. Over 160 such DBs and more than 80 software tools were developed, which are uncharacterized, unannotated, deployed at different universal resource locators and are challenging to reach out through a normal web search. Besides, most of the DBs/tools are present on preprints and are either underutilized or unrecognized because of their inability to make it to top Google search hits. Henceforth, there was a need to crawl and characterize these DBs and create a compendium for easy referencing. The current article is one such concerted effort in this direction to create a COVID-19 resource compendium (COVIDium) that would facilitate the researchers to find suitable DBs and tools for their research studies. COVIDium tries to classify the DBs and tools into 11 broad categories for quick navigation. It also provides end-users some generic hit terms to filter the DB entries for quick access to the resources. Additionally, the DB provides Tracker Dashboard, Neuro Resources, references to COVID-19 datasets and protein-protein interactions. This compendium will be periodically updated to accommodate new resources. Database URL: The COVIDium is accessible through http://kraza.in/covidium/.

Toward a New Strategic Public Health Science for Policy, Practice, Impact, and Health Equity

The COVID-19 pandemic and its social and health impact have underscored the need for a new strategic science agenda for public health. To optimize public health impact, high-quality strategic science addresses scientific gaps that inform policy and guide practice. At least 6 scientific gaps emerge from the US experience with COVID-19: health equity science, data science and modernization, communication science, policy analysis and translation, scientific collaboration, and climate science. Addressing these areas within a strategic public health science agenda will accelerate achievement of public health goals. Public health leadership and scientists have an unprecedented opportunity to use strategic science to guide a new era of improved and equitable public health.

Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic

In the last decade Open Science principles have been successfully advocated for and are being slowly adopted in different research communities. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many publishers and researchers have sped up their adoption of Open Science practices, sometimes embracing them fully and sometimes partially or in a sub-optimal manner. In this article, we express concerns about the violation of some of the Open Science principles and its potential impact on the quality of research output. We provide evidence of the misuses of these principles at different stages of the scientific process. We call for a wider adoption of Open Science practices in the hope that this work will encourage a broader endorsement of Open Science principles and serve as a reminder that science should always be a rigorous process, reliable and transparent, especially in the context of a pandemic where research findings are being translated into practice even more rapidly. We provide all data and scripts at https://osf.io/renxy/ .

Open science in practice: 300 published research ideas and outcomes illustrate how RIO Journal facilitates engagement with the research process

Since Research Ideas and Outcomes was launched in late 2015, it has stimulated experimentation around the publication of and engagement with research processes, especially those with a strong open science component. Here, we zoom in on the first 300 RIO articles that have been published and elucidate how they relate to the different stages and variants of the research cycle, how they help address societal challenges and what forms of engagement have evolved around these resources, most of which have a nature and scope that would prevent them from entering the scholarly record via more traditional journals. Building on these observations, we describe some changes we recently introduced in the policies and peer review process at RIO to further facilitate engagement with the research process, including the establishment of an article collections feature that allows us to bring together research ideas and outcomes from within one research cycle or across multiple ones, irrespective of where they have been published.

A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 research in Africa

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented global research effort to build a body of knowledge that can inform mitigation strategies. We carried out a bibliometric analysis to describe the COVID-19 research output in Africa in terms of setting, study design, research themes and author affiliation.

METHODS

We searched for articles published between 1 December 2019 and 3 January 2021 from various databases including PubMed, African Journals Online, medRxiv, Collabovid, the WHO global research database and Google. All article types and study design were included.

RESULTS

A total of 1296 articles were retrieved. 46.6% were primary research articles, 48.6% were editorial-type articles while 4.6% were secondary research articles. 20.3% articles used the entire continent of Africa as their study setting while South Africa (15.4%) was the most common country-focused setting. The most common research topics include 'country preparedness and response' (24.9%) and 'the direct and indirect health impacts of the pandemic' (21.6%). However, only 1.0% of articles focus on therapeutics and vaccines. 90.3% of the articles had at least one African researcher as author, 78.5% had an African researcher as first author, while 63.5% had an African researcher as last author. The University of Cape Town leads with the greatest number of first and last authors. 13% of the articles were published in medRxiv and of the studies that declared funding, the Wellcome Trust was the top funding body.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights Africa's COVID-19 research and the continent's existing capacity to carry out research that addresses local problems. However, more studies focused on vaccines and therapeutics are needed to inform local development. In addition, the uneven distribution of research productivity among African countries emphasises the need for increased investment where needed.