- The paper identifies a surge in COVID-19 publications, noting only 7.7% of authors were outbreak scientists, which impacted research quality.
- The study finds that nearly two-thirds of papers were authored by teams without outbreak expertise, correlating with increased retraction rates.
- The paper recommends mandatory author expertise statements and robust interdisciplinary collaboration to strengthen future crisis preparedness.
Insights from Pandemic Publishing
The paper "What We Should Learn from Pandemic Publishing" provides a meticulous analysis of the publication landscape during the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors investigate the substantial influx of publications and contributions from researchers with varying degrees of expertise in outbreak science, and they offer a detailed taxonomy of these contributors: outbreak scientists, bellwethers, and newcomers. The paper underscores the implications of this diversity in authorship for both the quality of scientific output and future crisis preparedness.
Authorship Dynamics and Research Quality
During the pandemic, the number of COVID-19-related papers surged, reaching approximately 13,000 monthly. Outbreak scientists were significantly outnumbered, representing only 7.7% of authors, and contributing to 38.7% of the papers. Notably, by 2021, nearly two-thirds of the publications were authored by teams without outbreak science experts. This diversification, while bringing fresh perspectives, may have led to potential risks in research quality, as indicated by a rise in paper retractions.
The paper further compares COVID-19 publishing dynamics with previous crises like H1N1 and MERS, highlighting the unparalleled involvement of bellwethers and newcomers in the former due to the pandemic's broad impact and shifts in research funding and incentives.
Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Future Preparedness
The authors argue for the necessity of domain-informed collaboration. They posit that effective crisis response is contingent on interdisciplinary teams that integrate subject matter expertise. This paper makes a strong case for democratizing collaboration, suggesting that better preparation for future crises can be achieved by fostering interdisciplinary networks and alliances.
Recommendations for Scientists, Publishers, and Policymakers
- For Scientists: The paper encourages established researchers to enhance collaboration with outbreak scientists using tools like NIH Reporter and platforms such as Google Scholar. It emphasizes mentorship for younger researchers through societies and consortiums.
- For Publishers: Introducing a mandatory author expertise statement is proposed to promote transparency and encourage the inclusion of domain expertise, thus fostering informed, interdisciplinary partnerships.
- For Policymakers: The paper suggests policy reforms to support interdisciplinary research, drawing attention to historical initiatives like the NIH Common Fund. It calls for a sustained effort in promoting team science that spans several disciplines to improve the quality and impact of scientific research.
Conclusion
The analysis concludes that while the pandemic catalyzed a significant shift in the research ecosystem, it also exposed vulnerabilities due to the participation of non-experts. Ensuring robust, informed collaborations is crucial for the scientific community as it prepares for future crises. The proposed combination of initiatives aims to support such endeavors, potentially restoring public trust in scientific research. The insights presented in this paper provide a profound understanding of the evolving research dynamics and the critical importance of expert engagement in scientific publishing during global emergencies.