Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35613122›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

One-year in: COVID-19 research at the international level in CORD-19 data.

Caroline S Wagner, Xiaojing Cai, Yi Zhang, Caroline V Fry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
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.

Caroline S WagnerJohn Glenn College of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1724-8489
Xiaojing CaiSchool of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7346-6029
Yi ZhangAustralian Artificial Intelligence Institute, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Australia.
Caroline V FryShidler College of Business, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawai'i, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The appearance of a novel coronavirus in late 2019 radically changed the community of researchers working on coronaviruses since the 2002 SARS epidemic. In 2020, coronavirus-related publications grew by 20 times over the previous two years, with 130,000 more researchers publishing on related topics. The United States, the United Kingdom and China led dozens of nations working on coronavirus prior to the pandemic, but leadership consolidated among these three nations in 2020, which collectively accounted for 50% of all papers, garnering well more than 60% of citations. China took an early lead on COVID-19 research, but dropped rapidly in production and international participation through the year. Europe showed an opposite pattern, beginning slowly in publications but growing in contributions during the year. The share of internationally collaborative publications dropped from pre-pandemic rates; single-authored publications grew. For all nations, including China, the number of publications about COVID track closely with the outbreak of COVID-19 cases. Lower-income nations participate very little in COVID-19 research in 2020. Topic maps of internationally collaborative work show the rise of patient care and public health clusters-two topics that were largely absent from coronavirus research in the two years prior to 2020. Findings are consistent with global science as a self-organizing system operating on a reputation-based dynamic.

Indexed as

COVID-19BibliometricsEuropeHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2United States

Identifiers

PMID35613122
PMCPMC9132347

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.