Improved dynamics of sharing research findings in the COVID-19 epidemic compared with the SARS and Ebola epidemics

Assessing the Research Performance of the Iranian Medical Academics and Universities: A Bibliometric Analysis

Background

Implementing bibliometric indicators is the most prominent way to quantify the current status of research performance. This study aimed to map out the research performance of Iranian medical academics and universities in 2020 and determine its progress from 2016.

Methods

Data were extracted from the Iranian scientometric information database and universities' scientometric information database. Then, the data were analyzed to provide descriptive statistics of bibliometric indicators. Besides, the association between the research productivity of academics or universities with their background characteristics was investigated using Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, and chi-square tests.

Results

Iranian medical academics had extensive research productivity from 2016 to 2020, leading to 2.5-fold increase in their median number of papers. The research productivity was heterogeneous among the academics, with an H-index ranging from 0 to 98, and a median of 4. The research productivity was different by gender, academic position, general field of study, and academic degree. The class 1 universities had a higher quantity in research performance; however, there was no difference in quality-related indices comprising citations per paper ratio and high impact publication rate (SJR Q1) among different university classes. The median international collaboration rate has followed a growing trend in recent years and was 17% in 2020.

Conclusion

There is a remarkable growth in the research productivity of Iranian academics and universities. Iranian research community historically had rare international research collaborations; however, promising growth is shown in this regard. To maintain the growth in research productivity, the country should increase research and development expenditure, address gender disparities, supply universities that are lagging behind, facilitate further international collaboration, and support national journals to be indexed in the international citation databases.

Institution and gender-related differences in publication speed before and during COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic elicited a substantial hike in journal submissions and a global push to get medical evidence quickly through the review process. Editorial decisions and peer-assessments were made under intensified time constraints, which may have amplified social disparities in the outcomes of peer-reviewing, especially for COVID-19 related research. This study quantifies the differential impact of the pandemic on the duration of the peer-review process for women and men and for scientists at different strata of the institutional-prestige hierarchy. Using mixed-effects regression models with observations clustered at the journal level, we analysed newly available data on the submission and acceptance dates of 78,085 medical research articles published in 2019 and 2020. We found that institution-related disparities in the average time from manuscript submission to acceptance increased marginally in 2020, although half of the observed change was driven by speedy reviews of COVID-19 research. For COVID-19 papers, we found more substantial institution-related disparities in review times in favour of authors from highly-ranked institutions. Descriptive survival plots also indicated that scientists with prestigious affiliations benefitted more from fast-track peer reviewing than did colleagues from less reputed institutions. This difference was more pronounced for journals with a single-blind review procedure compared to journals with a double-blind review procedure. Gender-related changes in the duration of the peer-review process were small and inconsistent, although we observed a minor difference in the average review time of COVID-19 papers first authored by women and men.

Enacted Ebola Stigma and Health-related Quality of Life in Post Ebola Epidemic: A Psychosocial Mediation Framework Through Social Support, Self-Efficacy, and Coping

On-site experiences and reports have shown that the multiple outbreaks of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) resulted in pervasive experience of stigma against many people who have recovered from EVD as well as their families and close relatives. Three evidence-based protective factors which are supposed to mitigate the impact of enacted Ebola stigma on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of individuals in this epidemic context were identified. We expected that positive religious coping, perceived social support, and general self-efficacy would mediate the relationship between enacted Ebola stigma and HRQoL. These hypotheses were tested through multiple mediation model using the structural equation modeling among a large sample of adult populations (N = 1614; 50% women) in the province of Equateur in the DRC, in the aftermath of the 9th Ebola outbreak. The mediation model yielded adequate fit statistics and the results provided strong evidence that higher levels of enacted Ebola stigma were associated with lower HRQoL. They confirmed the synergetic mediating effects of positive religious coping, perceived social support from family (but not from others sources) and general self-efficacy. Futher exploratory findings revealed that the perceived social support from family buffered the impact of enacted Ebola stigma on HRQoL. If replicated by a longitudinal study, our findings lay a solid foundation for empirical-based community mental health interventions for reducing enacted Ebola stigma and promoting HRQoL during epidemics, especially in the DRC.

How the scientific community responded to the COVID-19 pandemic: A subject-level time-trend bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has triggered an avalanche of research publications, the various aspects of which need to be assessed. The objective of this study is to determine the scientific community's response patterns to COVID-19 through a bibliometric analysis of the time-trends, global contribution, international collaboration, open-access provision, science domains of focus, and the behavior of journals.

METHODS

The bibliographic records on COVID-19 literature were retrieved from both PubMed and Scopus. The period for searching was set from November 1, 2019, to April 15, 2021. The bibliographic data were coupled with COVID-19 incidence to explore possible association, as well as World Bank indicators and classification of economies.

RESULTS

A total of 159132 records were included in the study. Following the escalation of incidences of COVID-19 in late 2020 and early 2021, the monthly publication count made a new peak in March 2021 at 20505. Overall, 125155 (78.6%) were national, 22548 (14.2%) were bi-national, and 11429 (7.2%) were multi-national. Low-income countries with 928 (66.8%) international publications had the highest percentage of international. The open-access provision decreased from 85.5% in February 2020 to 62.0% in April 2021. As many as 82841 (70.8%) publications were related to health sciences, followed by life sciences 27031 (23.1%), social sciences 20291 (17.3%), and physical sciences 15141 (12.9%). The top three medical subjects in publications were general internal medicine, public health, and infectious diseases with 28.9%, 18.3%, and 12.6% of medical publications, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The association between the incidence and publication count indicated the scientific community's interest in the ongoing situation and timely response to it. Only one-fifth of publications resulted from international collaboration, which might lead to redundancy without adding significant value. Our study underscores the necessity of policies for attraction of international collaboration and direction of vital funds toward domains of higher priority.