Dataset Information

Dissemination of Information During Public Health Crises: Early COVID-19 Data From The Laryngoscope.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

During a public health crisis, it is important for medical journals to share information in a timely manner while maintaining a robust peer-review process. This review reports and analyzes The Laryngoscope's publication trends and practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, before the COVID-19 pandemic, and during previous pandemics.

Methods

Comprehensive review of two databases (PubMed and The Laryngoscope) was performed. COVID-19 manuscripts (published in The Laryngoscope during the first 4 months of the pandemic) were identified and compared to manuscripts pertaining to historic pandemics (published in The Laryngoscope during the first 2 years of each outbreak). Keywords included "Laryngoscope", "flu", "pandemic", "influenza", "SARS", "severe acute respiratory syndrome", "coronavirus", "COVID-19", and "SARS-CoV-2". Data were obtained from The Laryngoscope to characterize publication trends during and before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

From March 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020, The Laryngoscope had 203 COVID-19 submissions. As of July 8, 2020, 20 (9.9%) were accepted, 117 (57.6%) under review, and 66 (32.5%) rejected. During the first 4 months of the pandemic, 18 COVID-19 manuscripts were published. The mean number of days from submission to online publication was 45, compared to 170 in 2018 and 196 in 2019. A total of 4 manuscripts concerning previous pandemics were published during the initial 2 years of each outbreak.

Conclusions

The Laryngoscope rapidly disseminated quality publications during the COVID-19 pandemic by upholding a robust peer-review process while expediting editorial steps, highlighting relevant articles online, and providing open access to make COVID-19-related publications available as quickly as possible. Laryngoscope, 130:2508-2515, 2020.

SUBMITTER: Chern A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7537174 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA relentless flood of information accompanied the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. False news, conspiracy theories, and magical cures were shared with the general public at an alarming rate, which may lead to increased anxiety and stress levels and associated debilitating consequences.ObjectivesTo measure the level of COVID-19 information overload (COVIO) and assess the association between COVIO and sociodemographic characteristics among the general public.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted between April and May 2020 using a modified Cancer Information Overload scale. The survey was developed and posted on four social media platforms. The data were only collected from those who consented to participate. COVIO score was classified into high vs. low using the asymmetrical distribution as a guide and conducted a binary logistic regression to examine the factors associated with COVIO.ResultsA total number of 584 respondents participated in this study. The mean COVIO score of the respondents was 19.4 (±?4.0). Sources and frequency of receiving COVID-19 information were found to be significant predictors of COVIO. Participants who received information via the broadcast media were more likely to have high COVIO than those who received information via the social media (adjusted odds ratio ([aOR],14.599; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.608-132.559; p?=?0.017). Also, participants who received COVID-19 information every minute (aOR, 3.892; 95% CI, 1.124-13.480; p?=?0.032) were more likely to have high COVIO than those who received information every week.ConclusionThe source of information and the frequency of receiving COVID-19 information were significantly associated with COVIO. The COVID-19 information is often conflicting, leading to confusion and overload of information in the general population. This can have unfavorable effects on the measures taken to control the transmission and management of COVID-19 infection.