Metadata about: This study explores the response to COVID‐19 from investigators, editors, and publishers and seeks to define challenges during the early stages of the pandemic. A cross‐sectional bibliometric review of COVID‐19 literature was undertaken between 1 November 2019 and 24 March 2020, along with a comparative review of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) literature. Investigator responsiveness was assessed by measuring the volume and type of research published. Editorial responsiveness was assessed by measuring the submission‐to‐acceptance time and availability of original data. Publisher‐responsiveness was assessed by measuring the acceptance‐to‐publication time and the provision of open access. Three hundred and ninety‐eight of 2,835 COVID‐19 and 55 of 1,513 MERS search results were eligible. Most COVID‐19 studies were clinical reports (n = 242; 60.8%). The submission‐to‐acceptance [median: 5 days (IQR: 3–11) versus 71.5 days (38–106); P < .001] and acceptance‐to‐publication [median: 5 days (IQR: 2–8) versus 22.5 days (4–48·5‐; P < .001] times were strikingly shorter for COVID‐19. Almost all COVID‐19 (n = 396; 99.5%) and MERS (n = 55; 100%) studies were open‐access. Data sharing was infrequent, with original data available for 104 (26.1%) COVID‐19 and 10 (18.2%) MERS studies (P = .203). The early academic response was characterized by investigators aiming to define the disease. Studies were made rapidly and openly available. Only one‐in‐four were published alongside original data, which is a key target for improvement.

About: This study explores the response to COVID‐19 from investigators, editors, and publishers and seeks to define challenges during the early stages of the pandemic. A cross‐sectional bibliometric review of COVID‐19 literature was undertaken between 1 November 2019 and 24 March 2020, along with a comparative review of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) literature. Investigator responsiveness was assessed by measuring the volume and type of research published. Editorial responsiveness was assessed by measuring the submission‐to‐acceptance time and availability of original data. Publisher‐responsiveness was assessed by measuring the acceptance‐to‐publication time and the provision of open access. Three hundred and ninety‐eight of 2,835 COVID‐19 and 55 of 1,513 MERS search results were eligible. Most COVID‐19 studies were clinical reports (n = 242; 60.8%). The submission‐to‐acceptance [median: 5 days (IQR: 3–11) versus 71.5 days (38–106); P < .001] and acceptance‐to‐publication [median: 5 days (IQR: 2–8) versus 22.5 days (4–48·5‐; P < .001] times were strikingly shorter for COVID‐19. Almost all COVID‐19 (n = 396; 99.5%) and MERS (n = 55; 100%) studies were open‐access. Data sharing was infrequent, with original data available for 104 (26.1%) COVID‐19 and 10 (18.2%) MERS studies (P = .203). The early academic response was characterized by investigators aiming to define the disease. Studies were made rapidly and openly available. Only one‐in‐four were published alongside original data, which is a key target for improvement.

an Entity references as follows:

Graph IRI	Count
http://ns.inria.fr/covid19/graph/entityfishing	7
http://ns.inria.fr/covid19/graph/articles	3

Faceted Search & Find service v1.13.91

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3229 as of Jul 10 2020, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (94 GB total memory)
Copyright © 2009-2025 OpenLink Software