Back

Timeline from receipt to online publication of COVID-19 original research articles

Barakat, A. F.; Shokr, M.; Ibrahim, J.; Mandrola, J.; Elgendy, I. Y.

2020-06-26 public and global health
10.1101/2020.06.22.20137653 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo examine the timeline from submission of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID)-related original articles compared with non-COVID-related original articles. BackgroundThere have been growing concerns about the speed and rigor of the review process for COVID-related articles by journals. MethodsUsing Dimensions, an online searchable platform, we identified PubMed-indexed journals that published >50 COVID-related articles (regardless of article type) between 1/1/2020 and 5/16/2020 and had available data on the date of article receipt. For the control group, we included consecutive full-length original investigations with available receipt date (regardless of topic) published in these journals starting from 3/1/2019 until a 1:2 ratio of COVID to non-COVID-related articles per journal was achieved. ResultsThe final number included 294 COVID-related full-length original investigations with available article receipt dates published in 16 journals with corresponding 588 control articles from the same journals. The median time from article receipt to online publication was 20 (11-32) days for COVID-articles vs. 119 (62-182) days for controls (P<0.001). The median time to final acceptance (available for 97% of the articles) was 13 (5-23) days for COVID vs. 102 (55-161) days for controls (P<0.001). These observations were seen across all the included journals in the analysis. ConclusionsIn this analysis of full-length original investigations published in 16 medical journals, the median time from receipt to final acceptance of COVID-related articles was 8 times faster compared to non-COVID-related articles published in a similar time frame in the previous year. Online publication was 6 times faster for COVID-related articles compared to controls.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.