Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 11, 2025
15:00
Setup of Consumer Wearable Devices for Exposure and Health Monitoring in Population Studies
Published on: February 3, 2023
2.8K
Global academic response to COVID-19: Cross-sectional study
Jack A Helliwell1, William S Bolton1, Joshua R Burke1
1Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St. James's University of Leeds Leeds LS9 7TF UK.
Learned Publishing : Journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
|August 25, 2020
Summary
The early COVID-19 research response was rapid, with faster publication times than MERS. While most studies were open-access, data sharing needs improvement for future public health crises.
Area of Science:
- Bibliometrics and scientometrics
- Epidemiology
- Public health response
Background:
- The emergence of novel infectious diseases necessitates a rapid and effective scientific response.
- Understanding the dynamics of research publication during a pandemic is crucial for optimizing future responses.
- The early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic presented unprecedented challenges for investigators, editors, and publishers.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the early academic response to COVID-19 by investigators, editors, and publishers.
- To define the challenges encountered during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.
- To compare the publication metrics of COVID-19 research with those of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).
Main Methods:
- A cross-sectional bibliometric review of COVID-19 literature published between November 1, 2019, and March 24, 2020.
- Comparative analysis with MERS literature.
- Assessment of investigator responsiveness through publication volume and type; editorial responsiveness via submission-to-acceptance time and data availability; publisher responsiveness via acceptance-to-publication time and open access provision.
Main Results:
- COVID-19 research demonstrated significantly shorter submission-to-acceptance (5 days vs. 71.5 days) and acceptance-to-publication times (5 days vs. 22.5 days) compared to MERS.
- The majority of COVID-19 (99.5%) and MERS (100%) studies were published open-access.
- Original data availability was limited, with only 26.1% of COVID-19 studies and 18.2% of MERS studies sharing original data.
Conclusions:
- The early academic response to COVID-19 was characterized by rapid research dissemination, primarily focusing on disease definition.
- Rapid and open availability of studies was achieved, highlighting the scientific community's ability to respond to crises.
- Improving the sharing of original data in publications remains a critical area for enhancement in pandemic research.
Related Concept Videos
01:50Cross-Sectional Research
12.2K
In cross-sectional research, a researcher compares multiple segments of the population at the same time. If they were interested in people's dietary habits, the researcher might directly compare different groups of people by age. Instead of following a group of people for 20 years to see how their dietary habits changed from decade to decade, the researcher would study a group of 20-year-old individuals and compare them to a group of 30-year-old individuals and a group of 40-year-old...
12.2K
01:20Study Designs in Epidemiology
709
Epidemiological study designs are fundamental tools for investigating the distribution, determinants, and control of health conditions in populations. They help researchers understand the relationships between exposures and outcomes, and they broadly fall into two categories: "observational" and "experimental" studies.
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
709
01:29Bias in Epidemiological Studies
1.1K
Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:
1.1K
01:11Observational Studies
10.5K
Observational studies are a type of analytical study where researchers observe events without any interventions. In other words, the researcher does not influence the response variable or the experiment's outcome.
There are three types of observational studies – Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional.
Prospective Study
Prospective studies, also known as longitudinal or cohort studies, are carried out by collecting future data from groups sharing similar characteristics. One...
There are three types of observational studies – Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional.
Prospective Study
Prospective studies, also known as longitudinal or cohort studies, are carried out by collecting future data from groups sharing similar characteristics. One...
10.5K
01:18Steps in Outbreak Investigation
401
In the ever-evolving field of public health, statistical analysis serves as a cornerstone for understanding and managing disease outbreaks. By leveraging various statistical tools, health professionals can predict potential outbreaks, analyze ongoing situations, and devise effective responses to mitigate impact. For that to happen, there are a few possible stages of the analysis:
401
01:05Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms-SNPs
17.7K
A single nucleotide polymorphism or SNP is a single nucleotide variation at a specific genomic position in a large population. It is the most prevalent type of sequence variation found in the human genome. Point mutations that occur in more than 1% of the population qualify as SNPs. These are present once every 1000 nucleotides on an average in the human genome. Replacement of a purine with another purine (A/G) or a pyrimidine with another pyrimidine (C/T) is known as a transition. In contrast,...
17.7K