Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32836526›Full record

ArticleScientometrics2020

Coronavirus mapping in scientific publications: When science advances rapidly and collectively, is access to this knowledge open to society?

Simone Belli, Rogério Mugnaini, Joan Baltà, Ernest Abadal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientometrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Bibliometric analysis of Alzheimer's and dementia research in Latin America.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19: A first approach.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Eye-Related COVID-19: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Production Indexed in Scopus.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. A Bibliometric Network Analysis of Coronavirus during the First Eight Months of COVID-19 in 2020.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Simone BelliComplutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8934-7569
Rogério MugnainiUniversity of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Joan BaltàESIC Business & Marketing School, Barcelona, Spain.
Ernest AbadalUniversity of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic is creating a global health emergency. Mapping this health emergency in scientific publications demands multiple approaches to obtain a picture as complete as possible. To progress in the knowledge of this pandemic and to control its effects, international collaborations between researchers are essentials, as well as having open and immediate access to scientific publications, what we called "coopetition". Our main objectives are to identify the most productive countries in coronavirus publications, to analyse the international scientific collaboration on this topic, and to study the proportion and typology of open accessibility to these publications. We have analyzed 18,875 articles indexed in Web of Science. We performed the descriptive statistical analysis in order to explore the performance of the more prolific countries and organizations, as well as paying attention to the last 2 years. Registers have been analyzed separately via the VOSviewer software, drawing a network of links among countries and organizations to identify the starred countries and organizations, and the strongest links of the net. We have explored the capacity of researchers to generate scientific knowledge about a health crisis emergency, and their global capacity to collaborate among them in a global emergency. We consider that science is moving rapidly to find solutions to international health problems but access to this knowledge by society is not so quick due to several limitations (open access policies, corporate interests, etc.). We have observed that papers from China in the last 3 months (from January 2020 to March 2020) have a strong impact compared with papers published in years before. The United States and China are the major producers of documents of our sample, followed by all European countries, especially the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, and France. At the same time, the leading role of Saudi Arabia, Canada or South Korea should be noted, with a significant number of documents submitted but very different dynamics of international collaboration. The proportion of international collaboration is growing in all countries in 2019-2020, which contrasts with the situation of the last two decades. The organizations providing the most documents to the sample are mostly Chinese. The percentage of open access articles on coronavirus for the period 2001-2020 is 59.2% but if we focus in 2020 the figures increase up to 91.4%, due to the commitment of commercial publishers with the emergency.

Indexed as

2019-nCoVBibliometric analysisCoronavirusCOVID-19Open accessSARS-CoV-2Scientific collaborations

Identifiers

PMID32836526
PMCPMC7328881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.