CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 107scientometrics and bibliometrics researchAcademic Publishing and Open AccessPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The rapid, massive growth of COVID-19 authors in the scientific literature

Open access
Ioannidis, John P.A., Salholz-Hillel, Maia, Boyack, Kevin W., Baas, Jeroen·2020·Royal Society Open Science
DOI 10.1101/2020.12.15.422900PMC PMC8422596
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We examined the extent to which the scientific workforce in different fields was engaged in publishing COVID-19-related papers. According to Scopus (data cut, August 1, 2021), 210,183 COVID-19-related publications included 720,801 unique authors, of which 360,005 authors had published at least 5 full papers in their career and 23,520 authors were at the top 2% of their scientific subfield based on a career-long composite citation indicator. The growth of COVID-19 authors was far more rapid and massive compared with cohorts of authors historically publishing on H1N1, Zika, Ebola, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. All 174 scientific subfields had some specialists who had published on COVID-19. In 109 of the 174 subfields of science, at least one in ten active, influential (top-2% composite citation indicator) authors in the subfield had authored something on COVID-19. 52 hyper-prolific authors had already at least 60 (and up to 227) COVID-19 publications each. Among the 300 authors with the highest composite citation indicator for their COVID-19 publications, most common countries were USA (n=67), China (n=52), UK (n=32), and Italy (n=18). The rapid and massive involvement of the scientific workforce in COVID-19-related work is unprecedented and creates opportunities and challenges. There is evidence for hyper-prolific productivity.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2020.12.15.422900

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. 10.1038/d41586-020-03564-y · DOI
  2. 2020, Covidization of research: what are the risks?, Nat Med, 26, 1159, 10.1038/s41591-020-1015-0 · DOI
  3. 10.1038/d41586-020-03388-w · DOI
  4. 10.1126/science.abc1731 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 2021, General medical publications during COVID-19 show increased dissemination despite lower validation, PLoS One, 16, e0246427, 10.1371/journal.pone.0246427 · DOI
  6. 2020, Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies, Quantitative Science Studies, 1, 377, 10.1162/qss_a_00019 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Baas J , Fennel C . When peer reviewers go rogue—Estimated prevalence of citation manipulation by reviewers based on the citation patterns of 69,000 reviewers. (2019) Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI). 963–974. Rome, Italy
  8. Archambault É , Beauchesne OH , Caruso J . Towards a multilingual, comprehensive and open scientific journal ontology. (2011) Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), 66–77. Durban, South Africa.
  9. Zhang X , Zhao J , LeCun Y . Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. (2015) Advances in neural information processing systems, 649–657.
  10. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002501 · DOI
  11. 2020, Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators, PLoS Biol, 18, e3000918, 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000918 · DOI
  12. 10.1007/s11192-010-0188-6 · DOI
  13. 10.1002/asi.20991 · DOI
  14. 2017, Research portfolio analysis and topic prominence, Journal of Informetrics, 11, 1158, 10.1016/j.joi.2017.10.002 · DOI
  15. 10.1038/502S2a · DOI
  16. 10.1126/science.367.6481.963 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 2020, Characteristics of academic publications, preprints, and registered clinical trials on the COVID-19 pandemic, PLoS One, 15, e0240123, 10.1371/journal.pone.0240123 · DOI
  18. Lachapelle F . COVID-19 preprints and their publishing rate: an improved method. medRxiv 2020;doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.04.20188771. · DOI
  19. 2020, Coronavirus disease 2019: The harms of exaggerated information and non-evidence-based measures, Eur J Clin Invest, 50, e13222, 10.1111/eci.13222 · DOI
  20. 2020, The COVID-19 Infodemic: A Quantitative Analysis Through Facebook, Cureus, 12, e11346
  21. 2020, The COVID-19 social media infodemic, Sci Rep, 10, 16598, 10.1038/s41598-020-73510-5 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 2020, How to fight an infodemic, Lancet, 395, 676, 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30461-X · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1186/s12916-020-01650-6 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1136/jech-2020-214617 · DOI
  25. 10.1002/leap.1403 · DOI
  26. Abbott R , Bethel A , Rogers M , Whear R , Orr N , Shaw L , Stein K , Thompson Coon J . Characteristics, quality and volume of the first 5 months of the COVID-19 evidence synthesis infodemic: a meta-research study. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2021 Jun 3:bmjebm-2021-111710. · DOI · Paper page
  27. 2021, Quality and consistency of clinical practice guidelines for treating children with COVID-19, Ann Transl Med, 9, 633, 10.21037/atm-20-7000 · DOI
  28. 2020 30, Suboptimal Quality and High Risk of Bias in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies at Chest Radiography and CT in the Acute Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review, Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging, 2, e200342, 10.1148/ryct.2020200342 · DOI
  29. 2021, Evidence-based Traditional and Integrative Medicine Working Group for Public Health Emergency. Calling for improved quality in the registration of traditional Chinese medicine during the public health emergency: a survey of trial registries for COVID-19, H1N1, and SARS, . Trials, 22, 188, 10.1186/s13063-021-05113-y · DOI
  30. 2021 28, Reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews needs to be improved: an evidence mapping, J Clin Epidemiol, 135, 17, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.021 · DOI
  31. 2021, Following the science? Comparison of methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 and other research from the first wave of the pandemic, BMC Med, 19, 46, 10.1186/s12916-021-01920-x · DOI
  32. 2021, Consistency of recommendations and methodological quality of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19, J Evid Based Med, 14, 40, 10.1111/jebm.12419 · DOI
  33. Yang S , Li A , Eshaghpour A , Ivanisevic S , Salopek A , Eikelboom J , Crowther M . Quality of early evidence on the pathogenesis, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of COVID-19. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2020 Sep 30:bmjebm-2020-111499. · DOI
  34. Nieto I , Navas JF , Vázquez C . The quality of research on mental health related to the COVID-19 pandemic: A note of caution after a systematic review. Brain Behav Immun Health. 2020 Aug;7:100123. · DOI
  35. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.04.016 · DOI
  36. 10.1038/d41586-018-06185-8 · DOI
  37. 10.1136/medethics-2020-106494 · DOI
  38. 2020, High-profile coronavirus retractions raise concerns about data oversight, Nature, 582, 160, 10.1038/d41586-020-01695-w · DOI
  39. 2020, An “alarming” and “exceptionally high” rate of COVID-19 retractions?, Account Res, 11, 1
  40. ELSEVIER. Elsevier fingerprint engine, https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/elsevier-fingerprint-engine (2019).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Salholz-Hillel, M., Boyack, K. W., & Baas, J.
Affiliations
  • Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • SciTech Strategies (United States) (US)
  • Elsevier BV (Netherlands) (NL)
Corresponding author
Ioannidis, John P.A.
ORCID
Venue
Royal Society Open Science
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2020-12-16
Volume
8
Issue
9
Pages
210389-210389
ISSN
2054-5703 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1101/2020.12.15.422900
PMC
PMC8422596
OpenAlex
W3198401195
Cited by
107
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 10
FWCI
12.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Royal Society Open Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Laura and John Arnold Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, research workforce, author productivity, citation impact, research output growth, H1N1, Zika virus, Ebola, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review