Dataset Information

The scientific literature on Coronaviruses, COVID-19 and its associated safety-related research dimensions: A scientometric analysis and scoping review.

ABSTRACT: The COVID-19 global pandemic has generated an abundance of research quickly following the outbreak. Within only a few months, more than a thousand studies on this topic have already appeared in the scientific literature. In this short review, we analyse the bibliometric aspects of these studies on a macro level, as well as those addressing Coronaviruses in general. Furthermore, through a scoping analysis of the literature on COVID-19, we identify the main safety-related dimensions that these studies have thus far addressed. Our findings show that across various research domains, and apart from the medical and clinical aspects such as the safety of vaccines and treatments, issues related to patient transport safety, occupational safety of healthcare professionals, biosafety of laboratories and facilities, social safety, food safety, and particularly mental/psychological health and domestic safety have thus far attracted most attention of the scientific community in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our analysis also uncovers various potentially significant safety problems caused by this global health emergency which currently have attracted only limited scientific focus but may warrant more attention. These include matters such as cyber safety, economic safety, and supply-chain safety. These findings highlight why, from an academic research perspective, a holistic interdisciplinary approach and a collective scientific effort is required to help understand and mitigate the various safety impacts of this crisis whose implications reach far beyond the bio-medical risks. Such holistic safety-scientific understanding of the COVID-19 crisis can furthermore be instrumental to be better prepared for a future pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Haghani M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7203062 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The scientific literature on Coronaviruses, COVID-19 and its associated safety-related research dimensions: A scientometric analysis and scoping review.

Haghani Milad M Bliemer Michiel C J MCJ Goerlandt Floris F Li Jie J

Safety science 20200507

The COVID-19 global pandemic has generated an abundance of research quickly following the outbreak. Within only a few months, more than a thousand studies on this topic have already appeared in the scientific literature. In this short review, we analyse the bibliometric aspects of these studies on a macro level, as well as those addressing Coronaviruses in general. Furthermore, through a scoping analysis of the literature on COVID-19, we identify the main safety-related dimensions that these stu ...[more]

PMID: 32382213

Similar Datasets

Project description:Infectious diseases remain a complex, recurring, and challenging public health hazard. Coronaviruses have led to multidimensional consequences on health, mobility, and socio-economic conditions. Despite the significance and magnitude of impact from epidemics to the pandemic, literature is sparse on comprehensive coronaviruses related research performance over time. This study aimed at a scientometric evaluation of coronaviruses related literature including COVID-19. Data related to Coronavirus research was extracted from the Web of Science (WoS). All types of publications (28,846) were included and retrieved. To measure the quantity and quality of the publications, "R-Bibliometrix" package was used for detailed analysis exploring a wide range of indicators. Generally, an increasing trend was observed over time led by the USA and China followed by the United Kingdom, Europe, and few other developed countries. The last two decades contributed around 39.5% of documents while only 06 months of 2020 additionally contributed around 46.5% of total documents. Earlier shorter spikes of increased post epidemic publications followed by decreased productivity were detected in the last 2 decades and showed a lack of continuity-'a research epidemic following a disease epidemic'. Articles (53.4%) were the most common publication type. Journal of Virology, British Medical Journal (BMJ), and Virology were leading sources while BMJ, and Lancet showed increased contributions recently. Overall, similar trends of top authors were observed in terms of productivity, impact, collaborations, funding sources, and affiliations with few exceptions mainly from affected regions. Top 20 countries contributed >89% of documents suggesting a lack of global efforts. Networking was found to be mainly among developed nations with limited contributions from resource-limited countries perhaps requiring more cooperation. Recent post-COVID publications rise is highest, unprecedented, and rapidly growing. Authors strongly recommend recent COVID-19 pandemic as a call for continuous, more cooperative, and collective global research.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Text mining (TM) methods have been used extensively to extract relations and events from the literature. In addition, TM techniques have been used to extract various types or dimensions of interpretative information, known as Meta-Knowledge (MK), from the context of relations and events, e.g. negation, speculation, certainty and knowledge type. However, most existing methods have focussed on the extraction of individual dimensions of MK, without investigating how they can be combined to obtain even richer contextual information. In this paper, we describe a novel, supervised method to extract new MK dimensions that encode Research Hypotheses (an author's intended knowledge gain) and New Knowledge (an author's findings). The method incorporates various features, including a combination of simple MK dimensions. METHODS:We identify previously explored dimensions and then use a random forest to combine these with linguistic features into a classification model. To facilitate evaluation of the model, we have enriched two existing corpora annotated with relations and events, i.e., a subset of the GENIA-MK corpus and the EU-ADR corpus, by adding attributes to encode whether each relation or event corresponds to Research Hypothesis or New Knowledge. In the GENIA-MK corpus, these new attributes complement simpler MK dimensions that had previously been annotated. RESULTS:We show that our approach is able to assign different types of MK dimensions to relations and events with a high degree of accuracy. Firstly, our method is able to improve upon the previously reported state of the art performance for an existing dimension, i.e., Knowledge Type. Secondly, we also demonstrate high F1-score in predicting the new dimensions of Research Hypothesis (GENIA: 0.914, EU-ADR 0.802) and New Knowledge (GENIA: 0.829, EU-ADR 0.836). CONCLUSION:We have presented a novel approach for predicting New Knowledge and Research Hypothesis, which combines simple MK dimensions to achieve high F1-scores. The extraction of such information is valuable for a number of practical TM applications.

Project description:Scientometrics enables scholars to assess and visualize emerging research trends and hot-spots in the scientific literature from a quantitative standpoint. In the last decades, Africa has nearly doubled its absolute count of scholarly output, even though its share in global knowledge production has dramatically decreased. The still-ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted the way scholarly research is conducted, published, and disseminated. However, the COVID-19-related research focus, the scientific productivity, and the research collaborative network of African researchers during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic remain to be elucidated. This study aimed to clarify the COVID-19 research patterns among African researchers and estimate the strength of collaborations and partnerships between African researchers and scholars from the rest of the world during the COVID-19 pandemic, collecting data from electronic scholarly databases such as Web of Science (WoS), PubMed/MEDLINE and African Journals OnLine (AJOL), the largest and prominent platform of African-published scholarly journals. We found that COVID-19-related collaboration patterns varied among African regions. For instance, most of the scholarly partnerships occurred with formerly colonial countries (such as European or North-American countries). In other cases, scholarly ties of North African countries were above all with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In terms of number of publications, South Africa and Egypt were among the most productive countries. Bibliometrics and, in particular, scientometrics can help scholars identify research areas of particular interest, as well as emerging topics, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. With a specific focus on the still-ongoing viral outbreak, they can assist decision- and policy-makers in allocating funding and economic-financial, logistic, organizational, and human resources, based on the specific gaps and needs of a given country or research area.

Project description:BackgroundThousands of research articles on neuroblastoma have been published over the past few decades; however, the heterogeneity and variable quality of scholarly data may challenge scientists or clinicians to survey all of the available information. Hence, holistic measurement and analyzation of neuroblastoma-related literature with the help of sophisticated mathematical tools could provide deep insights into global research performance and the collaborative architectonical structure within the neuroblastoma scientific community. In this scientometric study, we aim to determine the extent of the scientific output related to neuroblastoma research between 1980 and 2018.MethodsWe applied novel scientometric tools, including Bibliometrix R package, biblioshiny, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace IV for comprehensive science mapping analysis of extensive bibliographic metadata, which was retrieved from the Web of ScienceTM Core Collection database.ResultsWe demonstrate the enormous proliferation of neuroblastoma research during last the 38?years, including 12,435 documents published in 1828 academic journals by 36,908 authors from 86 different countries. These documents received a total of 316,017 citations with an average citation per document of 28.35?±?7.7. We determine the proportion of highly cited and never cited papers, "occasional" and prolific authors and journals. Further, we show 12 (13.9%) of 86 countries were responsible for 80.4% of neuroblastoma-related research output.ConclusionsThese findings are crucial for researchers, clinicians, journal editors, and others working in neuroblastoma research to understand the strengths and potential gaps in the current literature and to plan future investments in data collection and science policy. This first scientometric study of global neuroblastoma research performance provides valuable insight into the scientific landscape, co-authorship network architecture, international collaboration, and interaction within the neuroblastoma community.

Project description:BackgroundThe areas of Research Ethics (RE) and Research Integrity (RI) are rapidly evolving. Cases of research misconduct, other transgressions related to RE and RI, and forms of ethically questionable behaviors have been frequently published. The objective of this scoping review was to collect RE and RI cases, analyze their main characteristics, and discuss how these cases are represented in the scientific literature.MethodsThe search included cases involving a violation of, or misbehavior, poor judgment, or detrimental research practice in relation to a normative framework. A search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, JSTOR, Ovid, and Science Direct in March 2018, without language or date restriction. Data relating to the articles and the cases were extracted from case descriptions.ResultsA total of 14,719 records were identified, and 388 items were included in the qualitative synthesis. The papers contained 500 case descriptions. After applying the eligibility criteria, 238 cases were included in the analysis. In the case analysis, fabrication and falsification were the most frequently tagged violations (44.9%). The non-adherence to pertinent laws and regulations, such as lack of informed consent and REC approval, was the second most frequently tagged violation (15.7%), followed by patient safety issues (11.1%) and plagiarism (6.9%). 80.8% of cases were from the Medical and Health Sciences, 11.5% from the Natural Sciences, 4.3% from Social Sciences, 2.1% from Engineering and Technology, and 1.3% from Humanities. Paper retraction was the most prevalent sanction (45.4%), followed by exclusion from funding applications (35.5%).ConclusionsCase descriptions found in academic journals are dominated by discussions regarding prominent cases and are mainly published in the news section of journals. Our results show that there is an overrepresentation of biomedical research cases over other scientific fields compared to its proportion in scientific publications. The cases mostly involve fabrication, falsification, and patient safety issues. This finding could have a significant impact on the academic representation of misbehaviors. The predominance of fabrication and falsification cases might diverge the attention of the academic community from relevant but less visible violations, and from recently emerging forms of misbehaviors.

Dataset Information

The scientific literature on Coronaviruses, COVID-19 and its associated safety-related research dimensions: A scientometric analysis and scoping review.

Publications

The scientific literature on Coronaviruses, COVID-19 and its associated safety-related research dimensions: A scientometric analysis and scoping review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets