Characteristics of scientific articles on COVID-19 published during the initial 3 months of the pandemic

Nicola Di Girolamo () and Reint Meursinge Reynders ()
Additional contact information
Nicola Di Girolamo: Oklahoma State University
Reint Meursinge Reynders: University of Amsterdam

Scientometrics, 2020, vol. 125, issue 1, No 34, 795-812

Abstract: Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized by an unprecedented amount of published scientific articles. The aim of this study is to assess the type of articles published during the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare them with articles published during 2009 H1N1 swine influenza pandemic. Two operators independently extracted and assessed all articles on COVID-19 and on H1N1 swine influenza that had an abstract and were indexed in PubMed during the first 3 months of these pandemics. Of the 2482 articles retrieved on COVID-19, 1165 were included. Over half of them were secondary articles (590, 50.6%). Common primary articles were: human medical research (340, 59.1%), in silico studies (182, 31.7%) and in vitro studies (26, 4.5%). Of the human medical research, the vast majority were observational studies and cases series, followed by single case reports and one randomized controlled trial. Secondary articles were mainly reviews, viewpoints and editorials (373, 63.2%). Limitations were reported in 42 out of 1165 abstracts (3.6%), with 10 abstracts reporting actual methodological limitations. In a similar timeframe, there were 223 articles published on the H1N1 pandemic in 2009. During the COVID-19 pandemic there was a higher prevalence of reviews and guidance articles and a lower prevalence of in vitro and animal research studies compared with the H1N1 pandemic. In conclusions, compared to the H1N1 pandemic, the majority of early publications on COVID-19 does not provide new information, possibly diluting the original data published on this disease and consequently slowing down the development of a valid knowledge base on this disease. Also, only a negligible number of published articles reports limitations in the abstracts, hindering a rapid interpretation of their shortcomings. Researchers, peer reviewers, and editors should take action to flatten the curve of secondary articles.

Keywords: Covid-19; Coronavirus; SARS-nCoV-2; Study design; Research quality; Healthcare policy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (11)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03632-0 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:scient:v:125:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03632-0

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11192

DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03632-0

Access Statistics for this article

Scientometrics is currently edited by Wolfgang Glänzel

More articles in Scientometrics from Springer, Akadémiai Kiadó
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().