Publication Non Grata: The Challenge of Publishing Non-COVID-19 Research in the COVID Era

The impact of COVID-19 on global health journals: an analysis of impact factor and publication trends

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has affected research productivity across all areas of knowledge. Current evidence suggests that COVID-19 has had a blockbuster effect on journal impact factors (JIFs) and publication trends, while little is known on global health journals.

METHODS

Twenty global health journals were included to analyse the impact of COVID-19 on their JIFs and publication trends. Indicator data, including numbers of publications, citations, articles with different types, etc, were extracted from journal websites and Web of Science Core Collection database. The JIFs from 2019 to 2021 were simulated for longitudinal and cross-sectional analyses. Interrupted time-series analysis and non-parametric tests were applied to assess whether COVID-19 had decreased non-COVID-19 publications from January 2018 to June 2022.

RESULTS

In 2020, 615 out of 3223 publications were COVID-19 related, accounting for 19.08%. The simulated JIFs of 17 out of 20 journals in 2021 were higher than those in 2019 and 2020. Notably, 18 out of 20 journals had a decrease in their simulated JIFs after excluding COVID-19-related publications. Moreover, 10 out of 20 journals decreased their monthly numbers of non-COVID-19 publications after the COVID-19 outbreak. For all the 20 journals as a whole, after the COVID-19 outbreak in February 2020, the total number of non-COVID-19 publications significantly decreased by 14.2 compared with the previous month (p=0.013), and since then, on average, the publications had decreased by 0.6 per month until June 2022 (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 has impacted the structure of COVID-19-related publications, the JIFs of global health journals and their numbers of non-COVID-19 publications. Although journals may benefit from increased JIFs, global health journals should avoid relying on a single metric. More follow-up studies including more years of data with a combination of metrics should be conducted to generate more robust evidence.

Electronic patient-reported outcomes (e-PROMs) in palliative cancer care: a scoping review

Background

In palliative oncology settings, electronic patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment can play an important role in supporting clinical activities for clinicians and patients. This scoping review aims to map the technological innovation of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (e-PROMs) in cancer palliative care and how PRO data collected through e-PROMs can influence the monitoring and management of symptoms and enable better communication between health professionals and patients.

Methods

A scoping review study was designed according to the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Medline, Embase, Web of Science, SCOPUS, PsycINFO and CINAHL and gray literature sources were consulted. The inclusion criteria were people over 18 years old receiving palliative and/or end-of-life care using e-PROMs.

Results

Thirteen primary studies were included: nine quantitative studies, two qualitative studies, and two mixed-method studies. The recently developed software that supports e-PROMs allows patients to receive feedback on their symptoms, helps clinicians prioritize care needs and monitors patients’ conditions as their symptoms change. Electronic PRO data prompt difficult, end-of-life communication between clinicians and patients to better organize care in the last phase of life.

Conclusion

This work shows that electronic PRO data assessment provides valuable tools for patients’ well-being and the management of symptoms; only one study reported conflicting results. However, with studies lacking on how clinicians can use these tools to improve communication with patients, more research is needed.

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Scientific Research: an Upcoming New Wave?

The coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic continues to have an impact on health care. A potential new wave can be foreseen concerning the impact of the pandemic on medical research and literature. We focused our attention on journals belonging to "Medicine, General and Internal" Clarivate™ category and "Q1" journal impact factor quartile. We found that since January 2020, 9621 papers regarding COVID-19 have been published in these journals. This occurred at the expense of non-COVID-19-related scientific papers as most journals did not increase the total number of their published articles. Thus, our analysis may outlook a new potential scientific wave related to COVID-19, in addition to the clinical ones, possibly delaying the improvement in the quality of care for other diseases in the next years.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific research in the life sciences

The COVID-19 outbreak has posed an unprecedented challenge to humanity and science. On the one side, public and private incentives have been put in place to promptly allocate resources toward research areas strictly related to the COVID-19 emergency. However, research in many fields not directly related to the pandemic has been displaced. In this paper, we assess the impact of COVID-19 on world scientific production in the life sciences and find indications that the usage of medical subject headings (MeSH) has changed following the outbreak. We estimate through a difference-in-differences approach the impact of the start of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific production using the PubMed database (3.6 Million research papers). We find that COVID-19-related MeSH terms have experienced a 6.5 fold increase in output on average, while publications on unrelated MeSH terms dropped by 10 to 12%. The publication weighted impact has an even more pronounced negative effect (-16% to -19%). Moreover, COVID-19 has displaced clinical trial publications (-24%) and diverted grants from research areas not closely related to COVID-19. Note that since COVID-19 publications may have been fast-tracked, the sudden surge in COVID-19 publications might be driven by editorial policy.

A Review of COVID-19-Related Publications and Lag Times During the First Six Months of the Year 2020

INTRODUCTION

Considering the need for information regarding approaches to prevention and treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we sought to determine publication lag times of COVID-19-related original research articles published in top general medicine and emergency medicine (EM) journals. We further sought to characterize the types of COVID-19 publications within these journals.

METHODS

We reviewed 125 top-ranked general medicine journals and 20 top-ranked EM-specific journals for COVID-19-related publications. We abstracted article titles and manuscript details for each COVID-19-related article published between January 1-June 30, 2020, and categorized articles as one of the following: original research; case report; review; or commentary. We abstracted data for preprint publications over the same time period and determined whether articles from the general medicine and EM journals had been previously published as preprint articles. Our primary outcomes were the following: 1) lag time (days) between global cumulative World Health Organization (WHO)-confirmed cases of COVID-19 and publications; 2) lag times between preprint article publication and peer-reviewed journal publication; and 3) lag times between submission and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Our secondary outcome was to characterize COVID-19-related publications.

RESULTS

The first original research publications appeared in a general medicine journal 20 days and in an EM journal 58 days after the first WHO-confirmed case of COVID-19. We found median and mean lag times between preprint publications and journal publications of 32 days (19, 49) and 36 days (22) for general medicine journals, and 26 days (16, 36) and 25 days (13) for EM journals. Median and mean lag times between submission and publication were 30 days (19, 45) and 35 days (13) for general medicine journals, and 23 days (11, 39) and 27 days (19) for EM journals. Of 2530 general medicine journal articles and 351 EM journal articles, 28% and 23.6% were original research. We noted substantial closing of the preprint to peer-reviewed publication (160 days pre-pandemic) and peer-reviewed journal submission to publication (194 days pre-pandemic) lag times for COVID-19 manuscripts.

CONCLUSION

We found a rapid and robust response with shortened publication lag times to meet the need for the publication of original research and other vital medical information related to COVID-19 during the first six months of 2020.

[Development of the publication activity at the German university hospitals for Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery during the SARS-CoV-2-pandemic in 2020]

INTRODUCTION

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has led to profound limitations in patient care and student teaching at the University Hospitals of Otorhinolaryngology (ORL). In contrast, the impact on research has been variable. To classify the pandemic-related effect on research, the development of the number of scientific publications of the German ORL university hospitals before and during the pandemic was analyzed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The publication performance between 2015 and 2020 of the 39 current chairmen was surveyed using a literature search (Pubmed). All entries relating to the chairmen of the university hospital as first, last or co-author were included. The absolute and relative development of each author's publication performance was determined and evaluated using nonparametric statistical methods.

RESULTS

A total of 2420 publications could be documented. From 2015 to 2019, an average of 368 publications were published per year. In 2020, this number increased by 57.9 % to 581 publications. While the number of monthly publications remained constant between 2015 and 2019, a significant increase was seen from May 2020 up to a maximum of 74 publications in September 2020. In 2020, 34 articles (5.9 %) had a thematic relation to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, with 7 of these papers (20.6 %) resulting from cross-site publications.

CONCLUSION

In 2020, the number of scientific publications was raised to more than 1.5 times the usual annual publications. This increase was clearly related in time to the reduction of elective patient care during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic starting in mid-March 2020. Probably, free time capacities enabled this increased publication output. Our results confirm the great scientific potential of the ORL university hospitals, which has been successfully implemented despite the pandemic.