The impact of early scientific literature in response to COVID-19: a scientometric perspective
Golinelli, D.; Nuzzolese, A. G.; Boetto, E.; Rallo, F.; Greco, M.; Toscano, F.; Fantini, M. P.
Show abstract
BackgroundIn the early phases of a new pandemic, identifying the most relevant evidence and quantifying which studies are shared the most can help researchers and policy makers. The aim of this study is to describe and quantify the impact of early scientific production in response to COVID-19 pandemic. MethodsThe study consisted of: 1) review of the scientific literature produced in the first 30 days since the first COVID-19 paper was published; 2) analysis of papers metrics with the construction of a "Computed-Impact-Score" (CIS) that represents a unifying score over heterogeneous bibliometric indicators. In this study we use metrics and alternative metrics collected into five separate categories. On top of those categories we compute the CIS. Highest CIS papers are further analyzed. Results239 papers have been included in the study. The mean of citations, mentions and social media interactions resulted in 1.63, 10 and 1250, respectively. The paper with highest CIS resulted "Clinical features of patients[...]" by Chaolin Huang et al., which rated first also in citations and mentions. This is the first paper describing patients affected by the new disease and reporting data that are clearly of great interest to both the scientific community and the general population. ConclusionsThe early response of scientific literature during an epidemic does not follow a pre-established pattern. Being able to monitor how communications spread from the scientific world toward the general population using both traditional and alternative metric measures is essential, especially in the early stages of a pandemic.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Introducing the EMPIRE Index: A novel, value-based metric framework to measure the impact of medical publications 94%
- Motivations, concerns and selection biases when posting preprints: a survey of bioRxiv authors 94%
- Investigating the Nature of Open Science Practices Across Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Journals: An Audit 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Researcher and Clinician Preferences for a Journal Transparency Tool: A Mixed-Methods Survey and Focus Group Study 92%
- OxCOVID19 Database: a multimodal data repository for better understanding the global impact of COVID-19 89%
- Comparing protein-protein interaction networks of SARS-CoV-2 and (H1N1) influenza using topological features 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- How the COVID-19 pandemic is shaping research in Africa: inequalities in scholarly output and collaborations and new opportunities for scientific leadership 93%
- The Role of Societal Aspects in the Formation of Official COVID-19 Reports: A Data-Driven Analysis 91%
- Studies of Novel Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) Pandemic: A Global Analysis of Literature 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open-access publishing each year 93%
- A systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting 90%
- Online information on face masks in Italian and English websites: deficiencies and responsibilities of search engines 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- A step-by-step Researcher’s Guide to the use of an AI-based transformer in epidemiology: an exploratory analysis of ChatGPT using the STROBE checklist for observational studies 92%
- Are COVID-19 data reliable? The case of the European Union 89%
- Study demands and health status among medical students in two German universities 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.