Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33661076›Full record

ArticleGlobal public health

Open science, COVID-19, and the news: Exploring controversies in the circulation of early SARS-CoV-2 genomic epidemiology research.

Stephen Molldrem, Mustafa I Hussain, Anthony K J Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global public health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Stephen MolldremDepartment of Anthropology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1907-8081
Mustafa I HussainDepartment of Informatics, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0103-9516
Anthony K J SmithCentre for Social Research in Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0005-9542

Funding

University of California Health Participation in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C)UL1TR001414 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI COOPER, DAN M, VILAIN, ERIC J. · 2015 to 2023
$35.1M
NRSA Training CoreTL1TR001415 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI CAIOZZO, VINCENT JAMES, HEAD, ELIZABETH · 2015 to 2023
$4.2M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001415NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001414
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Some early English language news coverage of COVID-19 epidemiology focused on studies that examined how SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) was evolving at the genetic level. The use of phylogenetic methods to analyse pathogen genetic sequence data to understand disease dynamics is called 'molecular' or 'genomic' epidemiology. Many research groups in this subfield utilise open science practices, which can involve the circulation of early unreviewed findings on publicly-accessible venues online. From March to May 2020, media outlets covered early SARS-CoV-2 genomic studies that claimed to have discovered types of SARS-CoV-2 that had mutated to be more transmissible. We use methods from Science and Technology Studies (STS) to examine three cumulative cases in which unripe facts about SARS-CoV-2 genomics moved out of scientific publics and into mainstream news. The three cases are: (1) 'A More "Aggressive" Strain of SARS-CoV-2?', (2) 'Eight SARS-CoV-2 Strains?', and (3) 'A "More Contagious," "Mutant" Strain?' In each case, findings were called into question and reporters' framing was overly sensational. We interpret the COVID-19 pandemic as a 'stress-test' for open science practices, and argue that it is important for stakeholders to understand changes in scientific publication and dissemination processes in the wake of the pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsSARS-CoV-2Epidemiologic StudiesGenomicsHumansMass Mediamedia studiesMolecular epidemiologypathogen genomicsscience and technology studiesscience communication

Identifiers

PMID33661076
PMCPMC8338786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.