ArticlePloS one2021
How the scientific community responded to the COVID-19 pandemic: A subject-level time-trend bibliometric analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Bibliometric Analysis of COVID-19 Publications Between January 2019 and February 2025 by Romanian Authors.Cureus · 2025Review
- Evolution of global scientific collaboration in mRNA vaccine research: Insights from bibliometric and social network analysis (2010~2023).Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Article
- Exploring the clinical benefit of ventilation therapy across various patient groups with COVID-19 using real-world data.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Publications on COVID-19 in radiology journals in 2020 and 2021: bibliometric citation and co-citation network analysis.European radiology · 2023Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices about COVID-19 pandemic: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- COVID-19 burden, author affiliation and women's well-being: A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 related publications including focus on low- and middle-income countries.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Article
- Research trends and hotspots on connectomes from 2005 to 2021: A bibliometric and latent Dirichlet allocation application study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Institution and gender-related differences in publication speed before and during COVID-19.PloS one · 2022Article
- Editorial: Public Health Data Challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic: A Sisyphean task!Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices About COVID-19 Among Healthcare Workers in Iran During the First Wave of the Pandemic.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Priorities Towards Fair Allocation of Ventilators During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Delphi Study.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCOVID-19 has triggered an avalanche of research publications, the various aspects of which need to be assessed. The objective of this study is to determine the scientific community's response patterns to COVID-19 through a bibliometric analysis of the time-trends, global contribution, international collaboration, open-access provision, science domains of focus, and the behavior of journals.
methodsThe bibliographic records on COVID-19 literature were retrieved from both PubMed and Scopus. The period for searching was set from November 1, 2019, to April 15, 2021. The bibliographic data were coupled with COVID-19 incidence to explore possible association, as well as World Bank indicators and classification of economies.
resultsA total of 159132 records were included in the study. Following the escalation of incidences of COVID-19 in late 2020 and early 2021, the monthly publication count made a new peak in March 2021 at 20505. Overall, 125155 (78.6%) were national, 22548 (14.2%) were bi-national, and 11429 (7.2%) were multi-national. Low-income countries with 928 (66.8%) international publications had the highest percentage of international. The open-access provision decreased from 85.5% in February 2020 to 62.0% in April 2021. As many as 82841 (70.8%) publications were related to health sciences, followed by life sciences 27031 (23.1%), social sciences 20291 (17.3%), and physical sciences 15141 (12.9%). The top three medical subjects in publications were general internal medicine, public health, and infectious diseases with 28.9%, 18.3%, and 12.6% of medical publications, respectively.
conclusionsThe association between the incidence and publication count indicated the scientific community's interest in the ongoing situation and timely response to it. Only one-fifth of publications resulted from international collaboration, which might lead to redundancy without adding significant value. Our study underscores the necessity of policies for attraction of international collaboration and direction of vital funds toward domains of higher priority.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.