Read on Twitter
Proud to co-author a scientific manuscript published on the preprint @medrxivpreprint
On #COVID19 science.
The question: How much faster do journals approve/publish COVID papers? Take a guess before reading our research letter here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.22.20137653v1
A brief thread
On #COVID19 science.
The question: How much faster do journals approve/publish COVID papers? Take a guess before reading our research letter here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.22.20137653v1
A brief thread
Co primary authors of this systematic review were @AmrFBarakat (UPitt) and @MohamedRShokr (Wayne State) / Senior author is @islamelgendy83 (MGH) Another author is Dr. Joseph Ibrahim (UPitt)
We searched journals that published >50 COVID articles b/w Jan-May 2020;
Control arm: consecutive orig papers w/ available receipt date published in these journals starting from 3/1/2019 until a 1:2 ratio of COVID to non-COVID articles per journal was achieved.
Control arm: consecutive orig papers w/ available receipt date published in these journals starting from 3/1/2019 until a 1:2 ratio of COVID to non-COVID articles per journal was achieved.
We found ≈300 papers in 16 journals vs ≈600 controls.
Get this: The median time to final acceptance was 13 (5-23) days for COVID vs 102 (55-161) days for controls (P<0.001).
To publish online for COVID papers was 20 (11-32) days vs 119 (62-182)days for non-COVID.
Get this: The median time to final acceptance was 13 (5-23) days for COVID vs 102 (55-161) days for controls (P<0.001).
To publish online for COVID papers was 20 (11-32) days vs 119 (62-182)days for non-COVID.
Strikingly -- more than one in ten #COVID19 original scientific manuscripts were accepted within 2
days of receipt!
days of receipt!
We were careful in our conclusions.
This data alone does not prove that COVID peer- and editorial-review is insufficient. We also recognize the need for speed in a pandemic of a novel virus. But...
This data alone does not prove that COVID peer- and editorial-review is insufficient. We also recognize the need for speed in a pandemic of a novel virus. But...
...this systematic search does reveal that COVID science review moves super fast. 8x faster than nonCOVID science. Taken together with the recent retractions, it, at minimum, suggests the possibility that #COVID19 review is too fast. (or nonCOVID review is too slow)
Like all science, the questions raised warrant further study, and we are working on it.
I look forward to any public peer review and comments.
(TBH-- Publishing on a preprint feels quite similar to publishing in a normal journal)
I look forward to any public peer review and comments.
(TBH-- Publishing on a preprint feels quite similar to publishing in a normal journal)
Copying here @HelenBranswell @sgjeffrey @ShelleyWood2 @VPrasadMDMPH @adamcifu @EconTalker @EricTopol @rddysum @bylenasun @AndrewFoy82 @garyschwitzer @carlzimmer @jflier @jeremyfaust @CT_Bergstrom @PaulGlasziou @jameshamblin @tylercowen
