Temporal development of research publications on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19

Jonghoon Kang; Erin Kang; Matthew L. Cowan; Manuel Orozco

doi:10.12688/f1000research.42122.2

Home Browse Temporal development of research publications on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Brief Report

Revised

Temporal development of research publications on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19

[version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]

Jonghoon Kang ¹, Erin Kang², Matthew L. Cowan¹, Manuel Orozco³

PUBLISHED 21 Apr 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Biology, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, Georgia, 31698, USA
² James S. Rickards High School, Tallahassee, Florida, 32301, USA
³ Medicine, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Suwanee, Georgia, 30024, USA

Jonghoon Kang
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Erin Kang
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Matthew L. Cowan
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Manuel Orozco
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway.

This article is included in the Emerging Diseases and Outbreaks gateway.

This article is included in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) collection.

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected daily life throughout the world. The scientific community has globally responded to the pandemic with research on an unprecedented scale to help prevent disease spread and terminate the pandemic, resulting in a proliferation of scientific publications. In this article, the temporal trend of research on COVID-19 is analyzed to describe its development and inform a prediction of its future. Four other viruses are included in the analysis as negative or positive controls to illustrate that the concerns of the general public and/or the interest of the scientific community are major driving forces in the development of research. Our analysis predicts that COVID-19 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will be major topics of research until at least 2025. We discuss the implications of our analysis for three sectors of community: researchers, epidemiologists, and young students.

Keywords

COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, HCV, HIV, Ebola, Zika, PubMed, Scientometrics

Corresponding author: Jonghoon Kang

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2022 Kang J et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Kang J, Kang E, Cowan ML and Orozco M. Temporal development of research publications on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2022, 10:283 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.42122.2) First published: 12 Apr 2021, 10:283 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.42122.1) Latest published: 21 Apr 2022, 10:283 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.42122.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

We expanded the introduction section with Table 1, which compares five viruses examined in the paper.
We examined the types of the publications in COVID-19 research according to the publication-classification scheme of PubMed.
We discussed the limitations of our approach.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Mahmoud Nassar
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Ludovico Abenavoli

Introduction

The recent outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has imposed an unprecedented and devastating burden on the world,¹ including a serious encumbrance to health care systems.² Collectively the scientific community has responded to the pandemic by researching the spread of the disease and its causative pathogen, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in order to understand and terminate the pandemic. These efforts have resulted in a vast amount of publications. We believe it would be worthwhile to analyze the trend of the publications in order to predict the future of research in this area.

We have previously demonstrated that the number of publications may be a reliable quantitative measure of the magnitude of research activity of a biological or biomedical science.³ In conjunction with regression analysis, the method of assessing research activity of a biological or biomedical discipline based on the number of publications in the field has been found to be effective in the prognostication of the future of biomedical fields by extrapolation of the best fit equation.⁴ The method has successfully been applied to various fields such as food sciences,⁵ epigenetics,⁶ metabolomics,⁷ and environmental sciences.⁸

In this paper, we apply the method mentioned above to COVID-19 research to quantitatively describe the temporal development of the research and predict its future. We also include four other viruses in the study; hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HIV as negative controls without any apparent outbreaks in the period from January to November, 2020, and Ebola virus disease (EVD) and Zika virus (ZIKV) as positive controls of epidemiological outbreak during the period of examination from January 2014 to November 2020. Comparison of those five viruses is in Table 1. One thing noteworthy to mention is the relatively big genome size and small GC content of SARS-CoV-2 (Table 1).

Table 1. Comparison of five viruses.

Virus	RefSeq	INSDC	Size (Kb)	GC%	Protein	Gene	URL*
SARS-CoV-2	NC_045512.2	MN908947.3	29.9	38	12	11	1
HCV genotype 1	NC_004102.1	AF009606.1	9.65	58.2	2	1	2
HCV genotype 7	NC_030791.1	EF108306.2	9.44	56.8	2	1	3
HIV 1	NC_001802.1	AF033819.3	9.18	42.1	10	10	4
Ebola	Not available	LT605058.1	18.96	41.2	9	7	5
Zaire ebolavirus	NC_002549.1	AF086833.2	18.96	41.1	9	7	6
Zika	NC_012532.1	AY632535.2	10.79	50.9	1	1	7

* URL

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/?term=sars-cov-2%5Borgn%5D

2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/?term=HCV%5Borgn%5D

3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/?term=HCV%5Borgn%5D

4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/10319

5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/4887?genome_assembly_id=414173

6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/4887?genome_assembly_id=888630

7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/?term=zika+virus%5Borgn%5D

Methods

To quantitatively investigate the trend of research related to the five viruses (SARS-CoV-2, HCV, HIV, EVD, and ZIKV), we searched the PubMed database on December 23, 2020. Our search strategy was as follows for the different viruses: (The superscripts a and b in the search phrases represent month and year, respectively.)

SARS-CoV-2: (((COVID [Title/Abstract]) OR (COVID-19[Title/Abstract])) OR (SARS-CoV-2[Title/Abstract])) AND ((“2020/M^a”[Date - Publication]: “2020/M^a”[Date - Publication]))

HCV: (((HCV [Title/Abstract]) OR (“hepatitis C virus”[Title/Abstract])) AND (virus [Text Word])) AND ((“2020/M^a”[Date - Publication]: “2020/M^a”[Date - Publication]))

HIV: (((HIV [Title/Abstract]) OR (“human immunodeficiency virus”[Title/Abstract])) AND (virus [Text Word])) AND ((“2020/M^a”[Date - Publication]: “2020/M^a”[Date - Publication]))

Ebola: ((Ebola [Title/Abstract]) AND (virus [Text Word])) AND ((“Y^b/M^a”[Date - Publication]: “Y^b/M^a”[Date - Publication]))

Zika: ((ZIKA [Title/Abstract]) AND (virus [Text Word])) AND ((“Y^b/M^a”[Date - Publication]: “Y^b/M^a”[Date - Publication]))

The number of publications on each virus was manually recorded on a monthly basis for eleven months for SARS-CoV-2, HCV, and HIV from January to November 2020, and for eighty-three months for EVD and ZIKV from January 2014 to November 2020 for further investigation of data. Subsequent nonlinear regression analysis of the PubMed search results was conducted to obtain equation of best fit using SigmaPlot (version 11; Systat Software, Inc., San Jose, CA).

Results

We retrieved monthly publication numbers of the five viruses from the Pubmed database, and obtained the best fitting equation for each virus. Our results are summarized in Figure 1 and Table 2. Underlying raw data of our research are available in the database of Figshare.⁹ We identified that temporal dynamics of publications related to the five viruses exhibit four characteristics.

Figure 1. Number of research publications related to five viruses.

The solid line in each graph represents the best fit. The corresponding year in the panel B is presented above the x-axis. SARS-CoV-2 = severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Table 2. Fitting parameters (a, b, and c) and associated standard errors (SE) and the squared Pearson correlation coefficients (R²).

Equation	Virus	a ± SE	b ± SE	c ± SE	R²
Eq. (1)	SARS-CoV-2	12900 ± 370	0.67 ± 0.12	4.1 ± 0.14	0.9803
	Ebola	150 ± 65	1.8 ± 0.87	9.5 ± 1.9	0.8345
	Zika	220 ± 3.9	0.96 ± 0.088	25.8 ± 0.1	0.9916
Eq. (2)	Ebola	150 ± 8.7	0.013 ± 0.001		0.5522
Eq. (2)	Zika	300 ± 22	0.01 ± 0.001		0.5466

First, a sigmoidal equation (Equation 1) was found to be the best quantitative description of the publication trend of COVID-19 research:

(Equation 1)

f_{1} (x) = \frac{a}{1 + exp (\frac{c - x}{b})}

The value of each parameter is listed in Table 2. The mathematical meaning of each parameter can be found in our previous publication.⁴ In brief, the parameter “a” represents an asymptotic maximum value of the function, “b” is related to the shape of the function, and “c” is the year when the value of the function is half of the asymptotic maximum value.⁴ The sigmoidal kinetics observed in the research trend of COVID-19 (Figure 1) is congruent with other areas of research such as bioinformatics, epigenetics, food sciences, and environmental sciences.^4–7

Second, there was no significant correlation between the temporal point and the number of research publications on HCV and HIV during the time period examined from January to Novmber 2020 (p = 0.240 for HCV, and p = 0.367 for HIV) (Figure 1). This can be attributed to the absence of any significant outbreaks of HCV or HIV during the time period; while these viruses are important in a biomedical sense,^10,11 those viruses have likely been endemic.^12,13

Third, two examples of outbreaks in the decade of 2010, EVD¹⁴ and ZIKV,¹⁵ exhibit biphasic kinetics in the publication trend (Figure 1). The phase of sharp increase in number of publications, which overlaps with the time of each outbreak, also follows sigmoidal kinetics (Equation 1 and Table 2) as does COVID-19. The second phase, a decreasing phase, shows a slow and gradual decline that can be described by an exponential decay function (Equation 2):

(Equation 2)

f_{2} (x) = a \times exp (- bx)

Fourth, the exponential nature of the decay kinetics may be valuable for the prediction of the future of COVID-19 research. In the case of EVD, the publication number started to decrease, when x = 11 (Figure 1), where the publication number is 123 (see underlying data⁹) corresponding to 82% of the asymptotic maximum value of 150 (Table 2). Zika research started to decrease, when x = 33 (Figure 1), where the publication number is 222 (see underlying data⁹) corresponding to 101% of its asymptotic maximum value of 219 (Table 2). As of June, 2020, COVID-19 research reached 95% of its asymptotic maximum value of 12900 (Figure 1): 12288/12900 = 0.95 (underlying data⁹ and Table 2). The quantitative comparison between SARS-CoV-2 and the two viruses clearly suggests that the case of ZIKV is a more appropriate model for the prediction of COVID-19 research. Despite the apparent similarity of the research trend between SARS-CoV-2 and ZIKV, one should note that there is a substantial difference in the asymptotic maximum value (a in Equation 1) between these two areas of research: SARS-CoV-2 has an almost 60 times (≅ 12900/220) larger value of a than ZIKV (Table 2).

In addition to quantitative analysis of the publication trend of COVID-19 research, we examined the types of the publications according to the publication-classification scheme of PubMed. While most publications belong to the category of journal article, COVID-19 related research has been published in various other formats of publication. Complete data is available in the database of Figshare.¹⁶

Discussion

In this study, we examined trends of publications related to five viruses focusing on SARS-CoV-2 using the PubMed database. Reviewer 2 to our initial version raised a question on our selection of PubMed in literature search rather than MEDLINE or Embase.¹⁷ Clarification to this comment may be useful. MEDLINE is the National Library of Medicine’s bibliographic database and is the primary component of PubMed.¹⁸ Embase is a commercial database of biomedical research (https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/embase-biomedical-research). While it can be useful in biomedical literature search, paying charges is required to access the database. In contrast, PubMed is a free resource for biomedical literature search (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/about/), and has been found effective in our previous research.³^-⁸

The results of our research have implications for three sectors of the global community. One is for the scientific community in that research on COVID-19 is predicted to be active for a long time, even after commencing a downward trend. According to our mathematical model of the research on ZIKV, it will take COVID-19 research approximately 5 years (65.8 months) to reach half of its maximum value: f₂(98.8) = f₁(33)/2 and 98.8 – 33 = 65.8. While it is not certain when the publications on COVID-19 will start to decline, we expect that it will remain a major topic of research until at least 2025. This prediction may serve as a guide in planning research on COVID-19. The second implication of our results is for researchers in epidemiology as the method introduced in this paper can be easily applied to other epidemics and pandemics. The third implication is for young students. Our analysis of the ongoing research on COVID-19 should show them that science is a valuable way of contributing to humanity by providing solutions for public concerns such as COVID-19.

Finally, we conclude our study with limitations of our study. The fundamental rationale of our study is the future may be predicted by analyzing the history, which is one of the approaches used in the research of complex systems.¹⁹ While this approach was proved to be effective in predicting the future trend in our previous study,⁴ the future is intrinsically uncertain, especially when it involves human behaviors.²⁰ For example, the number of publications in biochemistry showed a sudden increase between 1974 and 1975, which was far out of regularity.³ The most conceivable factor that may limit our prediction is emergence of novel disastrous mutants of SARS-CoV-2. Another factor would be the effectiveness or medical implications of vaccines and therapeutic agents for COVID-19.²¹^,²² It will be interesting to evaluate the validity of our prediction made in this paper in 2025.

Data availability

Underlying data

Figshare: Number of PubMed-indexed articles related to five viruses; SARS-CoV-2, HCV, HIV, Ebola, and Zika. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12958361.v3⁹

This project contains the following underlying data:

- covid_figshare_kang.csv (spreadsheet of the number of research publications found relating to five viruses).

Figshare: Number of COVID-related publications in each publication type according to PubMed. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.17283764.v5¹⁶

This project contains the following underlying data:

- covid_publication_type.csv.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Kathi Canese, a Program Manager for the support department of PubMed, for the valuable advice in the search of PubMed.

References

1. Etienne CF, Fitzgerald J, Almeida G, et al.: COVID-19: transformative actions for more equitable, resilient, sustainable societies and health systems in the Americas. BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Aug; 5(8): e003509. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. Hsiang W, Forman H, Jain S, et al.: COVID-19 testing capabilities at urgent care centers in states with greatest disease burden [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Res. 2020; 9: 328. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
3. Kang J, Purnell CB: Implications for undergraduate education of two interdisciplinary biological sciences: biochemistry and biophysics. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011 Summer; 10(2): 111–112. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
4. Kang J, Park S, Venkat A, et al.: Quantitative Analysis of the Trends Exhibited by the Three Interdisciplinary Biological Sciences: Biophysics, Bioinformatics, and Systems Biology. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2015 Dec 1; 16(2): 198–202. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Kang J, Clifton EC: Quantitative Analysis of Food Science Trends. J Food Sci. 2018 Oct; 83(10): 2405–2406. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Kang J, Daines JR, Warren AN, et al.: Epigenetics for the 21st-Century Biology Student. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2019 Dec 18; 20(3): 20.3.56. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
7. Kang J, Song S, Cowan ML: Comment on Metabolomics for a Millenniums-Old Crop: Tea Plant (Camellia sinensis). J Agric Food Chem. 2020 Jan 15; 68(2): 697–698. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Kang J, Kang AM: Trend of the research on rare earth elements in environmental science. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2020 May; 27(13): 14318–14321. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Kang J, Kang E, Cowan ML: Number of PubMed-indexed articles related to five viruses; SARS-CoV-2, HCV, HIV, Ebola, and Zika. Figshare, V3. 2020. Publisher Full Text
10. Mukhtar NA, Ness EM, Jhaveri M, et al.: Epidemiologic features of a large hepatitis C cohort evaluated in a major health system in the western United States. Ann Hepatol. 2019 Mar-Apr; 18(2): 360–365. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Buchacz K, Armon C, Palella FJ Jr, et al.: HIV Outpatient Study (HOPS) Investigators. The HIV Outpatient Study-25 Years of HIV Patient Care and Epidemiologic Research. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Apr 11; 7(5): ofaa123. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
12. Alter MJ: Epidemiology of hepatitis C virus infection. World J Gastroenterol. 2007 May 7; 13(17): 2436–41. Publisher Full Text
13. Assefa Y, Gilks CF: Ending the epidemic of HIV/AIDS by 2030: Will there be an endgame to HIV, or an endemic HIV requiring an integrated health systems response in many countries? Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Nov; 100: 273–277. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Kamorudeen RT, Adedokun KA, Olarinmoye AO: Ebola outbreak in West Africa, 2014-2016: Epidemic timeline, differential diagnoses, determining factors, and lessons for future response. J Infect Public Health. 2020 Jul; 13(7): 956–962. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Madewell ZJ, López MR, Espinosa-Bode A, et al.: Inverse association between dengue, chikungunya, and Zika virus infection and indicators of household air pollution in Santa Rosa, Guatemala: A case-control study, 2011-2018. PLoS One. 2020 Jun 19; 15(6): e0234399. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
16. Kang J, Cowan ML: Number of COVID-related publications in each publication type according to PubMed.Figshare, V5.2022. Publisher Full Text
17. Nassar M: Peer Review Report For: Temporal development of research publications on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research . 2021; 10: 283. Publisher Full Text
18. McKeever L, Nguyen V, Peterson SJ, et al.:Demystifying the Search Button: A Comprehensive PubMed Search Strategy for Performing an Exhaustive Literature Review.JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr.2015 Aug;39(6):622–635. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Turchin P, Currie TE, Whitehouse H, et al.:Quantitative historical analysis uncovers a single dimension of complexity that structures global variation in human social organization.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018;115(2):E144–E151. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
20. Larremore DB, Clauset A:Why predicting the future is more than just horseplay. In Krakauer DC (ed). Worlds Hidden in Plain Sight. NM, Santa Fe: Santa Fe Institute Press; 2019.
21. Nassar M, Chung H, Dhayaparan Y, et al.:COVID-19 vaccine induced rhabdomyolysis: Case report with literature review.Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research and Reviews.2021;15(4):102170. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Nassar M, Nso N, Gonzalez C, et al.:COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis: Case report with literature review [published correction appears in Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2021 Sep-Oct;15(5):102277]. Diabetes Metab Syndr.2021;15(5):102205. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 12 Apr 2021

Author details Author details

Erin Kang
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Matthew L. Cowan
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Manuel Orozco
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 21 Apr 2022, 10:283

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.42122.2

version 1

Published: 12 Apr 2021, 10:283

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.42122.1

© 2022 Kang J et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Kang J, Kang E, Cowan ML and Orozco M. Temporal development of research publications on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2022, 10:283 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.42122.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 21 Apr 2022

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 08 Sep 2022

Shizuka Uchida, Center for RNA Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.132429.r149690

In this manuscript, the authors analyzed the publication trends of COVID-19 compared to other similar respiratory diseases. Although several years of publications hosted in the PubMed database were analyzed, the current data analysis did not take into the account of the total number of publications in the PubMed database each year nor the number of retracted publications. More specific comments are listed below:

Major points:

Figure 1. Given that the number of journals hosted by the PubMed database has increased significantly in recent years; so does the number of scientific journals in general. Thus, the y-axes in Figure 1, which are number of publications, do not truly reflect the extend of increase in number of publications for each virus; unless it is normalized to the total number of articles hosted in the PubMed database each year.
Given that COVID-19 is an unexceptional pandemic disease that has affected every corners of the world, it is not clear what the authors aim to clarify by simply counting the number of articles in the PubMed database and compared it to the numbers of other similar diseases. The authors should put more efforts in analyzing the content of the articles. Also, it has became clear that the number of retracted articles of COVID-19 is far more than any other diseases. Thus, this point must be discussed as well. Not to add more information, COVID-19 is the first disease that preprint servers (e.g., Biorxiv) have played an important role in raising the awareness (and also causing the number of retraction to be higher than any other years). This point should also be discussed.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Bioinformatics, cardiovascular

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 12 Apr 2021

Views

Reviewer Report 01 Dec 2021

Mahmoud Nassar, Medicine Department, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai/NYC Health-Hospitals, Queens, NY, USA; Queens Hospital Center, Queens, NY, USA

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.45188.r100694

Dear Authors
Thank you so much for your great effort. This is an interesting topic. Here are some opportunities for improvement:

Please justify the selection of the four viruses compared to COVID-19. I propose to

Dear Authors
Thank you so much for your great effort. This is an interesting topic. Here are some opportunities for improvement:

Please justify the selection of the four viruses compared to COVID-19. I propose to make a comparison table with similarities and differences.
Please comment on why this article did not include other databases like Medline or Embase.
Please mention other factors affecting that affect the number of publications (direct and indirect).
Please comment on changes to the journals' publication policies, time, APC, indexing, etc.
Please comment on the global quarantine, governmental closure, and the negative impact on developed and developing countries' economic and social aspects.
I suggest commenting on the trend or theme¹ of research development of the diagnosis, prevention, COVID-19 complication, treatment, vaccination, COVID-19 vaccine-induced complications[ref2]^,³^,⁴, COVID-19 variants, COVID-19 vaccination booster dose.
There are many publications as case reports, case series, descriptive, case-control, RCT, meta-analysis, and umbrella review. For each phase and with other comorbidities⁵^,⁶^,[ref7]^,⁸. NB: All citations are my own papers and for guidance. You do not need to cite them.
Please create a limitation section and mention these factors as a study limitation. At least try to mention these factors as limitations in the study.
I suggest creating a diagram to demonstrate the evolution of COVID-19 research.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. Nassar M, Nso N, Alfishawy M, Novikov A, et al.: Current systematic reviews and meta-analyses of COVID-19.World J Virol. 2021; 10 (4): 182-208 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Nassar M, Chung H, Dhayaparan Y, Nyein A, et al.: COVID-19 vaccine induced rhabdomyolysis: Case report with literature review.Diabetes Metab Syndr. 15 (4): 102170 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Nassar M, Nso N, Gonzalez C, Lakhdar S, et al.: COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis: Case report with literature review.Diabetes Metab Syndr. 15 (5): 102205 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Kong J, Cuevas-Castillo F, Nassar M, Lei C, et al.: Bullous drug eruption after second dose of mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine: Case report. Journal of Infection and Public Health. 2021; 14 (10): 1392-1394 Publisher Full Text
5. Alfishawy M, Elbendary A, Mohamed M, Nassar M: COVID-19 Mortality in Transplant Recipients.Int J Organ Transplant Med. 2020; 11 (4): 145-162 PubMed Abstract
6. Alfishawy M, Elbendary A, Younes A, Negm A, et al.: Diabetes mellitus and Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19) Associated Mucormycosis (CAM): A wake-up call from Egypt.Diabetes Metab Syndr. 15 (5): 102195 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Alfishawy M, Nso N, Nassar M, Ariyaratnam J, et al.: Liver transplantation during global COVID-19 pandemic.World J Clin Cases. 2021; 9 (23): 6608-6623 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Nassar M, Nso N, Ariyaratnam J, Sandhu J, et al.: Coronavirus disease 2019 and renal transplantation.World J Clin Cases. 2021; 9 (27): 7986-7997 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Clinical research, COVID-19, Cardiovascular Diabetes, and Organ transplantation.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 25 Apr 2022

Jonghoon Kang, Biology, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, 31698, USA

25 Apr 2022

Author Response

Dear Dr Nassar,
Than you for your thoughtful comments (in plain fonts) on our paper. Here, we respond to your comments (in bold font).

Please justify the selection of ... Continue reading Dear Dr Nassar,
Than you for your thoughtful comments (in plain fonts) on our paper. Here, we respond to your comments (in bold font).

Please justify the selection of the four viruses compared to COVID-19. I propose to make a comparison table with similarities and differences.
Justification for the selection of the four viruses is comparison of COVID-19 to a negative control group (HCV and HIV) without any recent breaks and to a positive control group (EVD and ZIKV) with recent breaks. We selected those viruses based on our familiarity with them. We have included a comparison table (Table 1) in the revision.

Please comment on why this article did not include other databases like Medline or Embase.
We have included our justification for the selection of PubMed in our study in Discussion.

Please mention other factors affecting that affect the number of publications (direct and indirect).
Surely public interests are one of the factors affecting the number of publications as noted in our paper. However, we are not aware of any other factors for sure, even though there must be various factors. For example, we expect that the number of researchers and number of journals in a particular field will affect the number of publications in the field. It will be of great interest recognizing those factors in future research.

Please comment on changes to the journals' publication policies, time, APC, indexing, etc.
Those factors must play a role in the trend of publications. However, we do not have any explanation for the point.

Please comment on the global quarantine, governmental closure, and the negative impact on developed and developing countries' economic and social aspects.
Thank you for the additional guidance. However, the nature of this paper is to forecast the number of publications in the future by analyzing the trends and not related to the global quarantine, governmental closure, and the negative impact on developed and developing countries' economic and social aspects. That is not to say these areas are any less important but we are chiefly concerned with the mathematical nature of the trends we saw from our gathering of publication counts on PubMed.

I suggest commenting on the trend or theme1 of research development of the diagnosis, prevention, COVID-19 complication, treatment, vaccination, COVID-19 vaccine-induced complications[ref2],3,4, COVID-19 variants, COVID-19 vaccination booster dose.
There are many publications as case reports, case series, descriptive, case-control, RCT, meta-analysis, and umbrella review. For each phase and with other comorbidities5,6,[ref7],8. NB: All citations are my own papers and for guidance. You do not need to cite them.
Please create a limitation section and mention these factors as a study limitation. At least try to mention these factors as limitations in the study.
I suggest creating a diagram to demonstrate the evolution of COVID-19 research.
References
1. Nassar M, Nso N, Alfishawy M, Novikov A, et al.: Current systematic reviews and meta-analyses of COVID-19.World J Virol. 2021; 10 (4): 182-208 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Nassar M, Chung H, Dhayaparan Y, Nyein A, et al.: COVID-19 vaccine induced rhabdomyolysis: Case report with literature review.Diabetes Metab Syndr. 15 (4): 102170 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Nassar M, Nso N, Gonzalez C, Lakhdar S, et al.: COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis: Case report with literature review.Diabetes Metab Syndr. 15 (5): 102205 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Kong J, Cuevas-Castillo F, Nassar M, Lei C, et al.: Bullous drug eruption after second dose of mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine: Case report. Journal of Infection and Public Health. 2021; 14 (10): 1392-1394 Publisher Full Text
5. Alfishawy M, Elbendary A, Mohamed M, Nassar M: COVID-19 Mortality in Transplant Recipients.Int J Organ Transplant Med. 2020; 11 (4): 145-162 PubMed Abstract
6. Alfishawy M, Elbendary A, Younes A, Negm A, et al.: Diabetes mellitus and Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19) Associated Mucormycosis (CAM): A wake-up call from Egypt.Diabetes Metab Syndr. 15 (5): 102195 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Alfishawy M, Nso N, Nassar M, Ariyaratnam J, et al.: Liver transplantation during global COVID-19 pandemic.World J Clin Cases. 2021; 9 (23): 6608-6623 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Nassar M, Nso N, Ariyaratnam J, Sandhu J, et al.: Coronavirus disease 2019 and renal transplantation.World J Clin Cases. 2021; 9 (27): 7986-7997 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Thank you for the additional guidance. However, given the nature of this publication is a brief report we feel it would not be necessary to overburden the scope of the paper itself with this addition of the perceived diagram. Brief Reports are small, often preliminary studies, descriptions of unexpected and perhaps unexplained observations or lab protocols that can be described in a short report with a few illustrations (figures/tables), or even a single figure. https://f1000research.com/for-authors/article-guidelines/brief-report.

While qualitative investigation on the evolution of COVID-19 research is beyond the scope of our research, your suggestion of including a limitation section is deemed valuable for our research, and we discussed limitation of our approach in the revised edition. We also included two of the references you suggested in our revision. Thank you for suggesting the references.
Dear Dr Nassar,
Than you for your thoughtful comments (in plain fonts) on our paper. Here, we respond to your comments (in bold font).

Please justify the selection of the four viruses compared to COVID-19. I propose to make a comparison table with similarities and differences.
Justification for the selection of the four viruses is comparison of COVID-19 to a negative control group (HCV and HIV) without any recent breaks and to a positive control group (EVD and ZIKV) with recent breaks. We selected those viruses based on our familiarity with them. We have included a comparison table (Table 1) in the revision.

Please comment on why this article did not include other databases like Medline or Embase.
We have included our justification for the selection of PubMed in our study in Discussion.

Please mention other factors affecting that affect the number of publications (direct and indirect).
Surely public interests are one of the factors affecting the number of publications as noted in our paper. However, we are not aware of any other factors for sure, even though there must be various factors. For example, we expect that the number of researchers and number of journals in a particular field will affect the number of publications in the field. It will be of great interest recognizing those factors in future research.

Please comment on changes to the journals' publication policies, time, APC, indexing, etc.
Those factors must play a role in the trend of publications. However, we do not have any explanation for the point.

Please comment on the global quarantine, governmental closure, and the negative impact on developed and developing countries' economic and social aspects.
Thank you for the additional guidance. However, the nature of this paper is to forecast the number of publications in the future by analyzing the trends and not related to the global quarantine, governmental closure, and the negative impact on developed and developing countries' economic and social aspects. That is not to say these areas are any less important but we are chiefly concerned with the mathematical nature of the trends we saw from our gathering of publication counts on PubMed.

I suggest commenting on the trend or theme1 of research development of the diagnosis, prevention, COVID-19 complication, treatment, vaccination, COVID-19 vaccine-induced complications[ref2],3,4, COVID-19 variants, COVID-19 vaccination booster dose.
There are many publications as case reports, case series, descriptive, case-control, RCT, meta-analysis, and umbrella review. For each phase and with other comorbidities5,6,[ref7],8. NB: All citations are my own papers and for guidance. You do not need to cite them.
Please create a limitation section and mention these factors as a study limitation. At least try to mention these factors as limitations in the study.
I suggest creating a diagram to demonstrate the evolution of COVID-19 research.
References
1. Nassar M, Nso N, Alfishawy M, Novikov A, et al.: Current systematic reviews and meta-analyses of COVID-19.World J Virol. 2021; 10 (4): 182-208 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Nassar M, Chung H, Dhayaparan Y, Nyein A, et al.: COVID-19 vaccine induced rhabdomyolysis: Case report with literature review.Diabetes Metab Syndr. 15 (4): 102170 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Nassar M, Nso N, Gonzalez C, Lakhdar S, et al.: COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis: Case report with literature review.Diabetes Metab Syndr. 15 (5): 102205 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Kong J, Cuevas-Castillo F, Nassar M, Lei C, et al.: Bullous drug eruption after second dose of mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine: Case report. Journal of Infection and Public Health. 2021; 14 (10): 1392-1394 Publisher Full Text
5. Alfishawy M, Elbendary A, Mohamed M, Nassar M: COVID-19 Mortality in Transplant Recipients.Int J Organ Transplant Med. 2020; 11 (4): 145-162 PubMed Abstract
6. Alfishawy M, Elbendary A, Younes A, Negm A, et al.: Diabetes mellitus and Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19) Associated Mucormycosis (CAM): A wake-up call from Egypt.Diabetes Metab Syndr. 15 (5): 102195 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Alfishawy M, Nso N, Nassar M, Ariyaratnam J, et al.: Liver transplantation during global COVID-19 pandemic.World J Clin Cases. 2021; 9 (23): 6608-6623 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Nassar M, Nso N, Ariyaratnam J, Sandhu J, et al.: Coronavirus disease 2019 and renal transplantation.World J Clin Cases. 2021; 9 (27): 7986-7997 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Thank you for the additional guidance. However, given the nature of this publication is a brief report we feel it would not be necessary to overburden the scope of the paper itself with this addition of the perceived diagram. Brief Reports are small, often preliminary studies, descriptions of unexpected and perhaps unexplained observations or lab protocols that can be described in a short report with a few illustrations (figures/tables), or even a single figure. https://f1000research.com/for-authors/article-guidelines/brief-report.

While qualitative investigation on the evolution of COVID-19 research is beyond the scope of our research, your suggestion of including a limitation section is deemed valuable for our research, and we discussed limitation of our approach in the revised edition. We also included two of the references you suggested in our revision. Thank you for suggesting the references.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 25 Apr 2022

Jonghoon Kang, Biology, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, 31698, USA

25 Apr 2022

Author Response

Dear Dr Nassar,
Than you for your thoughtful comments (in plain fonts) on our paper. Here, we respond to your comments (in bold font).

Please justify the selection of ... Continue reading Dear Dr Nassar,
Than you for your thoughtful comments (in plain fonts) on our paper. Here, we respond to your comments (in bold font).

Please justify the selection of the four viruses compared to COVID-19. I propose to make a comparison table with similarities and differences.
Justification for the selection of the four viruses is comparison of COVID-19 to a negative control group (HCV and HIV) without any recent breaks and to a positive control group (EVD and ZIKV) with recent breaks. We selected those viruses based on our familiarity with them. We have included a comparison table (Table 1) in the revision.

Please comment on why this article did not include other databases like Medline or Embase.
We have included our justification for the selection of PubMed in our study in Discussion.

Please mention other factors affecting that affect the number of publications (direct and indirect).
Surely public interests are one of the factors affecting the number of publications as noted in our paper. However, we are not aware of any other factors for sure, even though there must be various factors. For example, we expect that the number of researchers and number of journals in a particular field will affect the number of publications in the field. It will be of great interest recognizing those factors in future research.

Please comment on changes to the journals' publication policies, time, APC, indexing, etc.
Those factors must play a role in the trend of publications. However, we do not have any explanation for the point.

Please comment on the global quarantine, governmental closure, and the negative impact on developed and developing countries' economic and social aspects.
Thank you for the additional guidance. However, the nature of this paper is to forecast the number of publications in the future by analyzing the trends and not related to the global quarantine, governmental closure, and the negative impact on developed and developing countries' economic and social aspects. That is not to say these areas are any less important but we are chiefly concerned with the mathematical nature of the trends we saw from our gathering of publication counts on PubMed.

I suggest commenting on the trend or theme1 of research development of the diagnosis, prevention, COVID-19 complication, treatment, vaccination, COVID-19 vaccine-induced complications[ref2],3,4, COVID-19 variants, COVID-19 vaccination booster dose.
There are many publications as case reports, case series, descriptive, case-control, RCT, meta-analysis, and umbrella review. For each phase and with other comorbidities5,6,[ref7],8. NB: All citations are my own papers and for guidance. You do not need to cite them.
Please create a limitation section and mention these factors as a study limitation. At least try to mention these factors as limitations in the study.
I suggest creating a diagram to demonstrate the evolution of COVID-19 research.
References
1. Nassar M, Nso N, Alfishawy M, Novikov A, et al.: Current systematic reviews and meta-analyses of COVID-19.World J Virol. 2021; 10 (4): 182-208 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Nassar M, Chung H, Dhayaparan Y, Nyein A, et al.: COVID-19 vaccine induced rhabdomyolysis: Case report with literature review.Diabetes Metab Syndr. 15 (4): 102170 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Nassar M, Nso N, Gonzalez C, Lakhdar S, et al.: COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis: Case report with literature review.Diabetes Metab Syndr. 15 (5): 102205 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Kong J, Cuevas-Castillo F, Nassar M, Lei C, et al.: Bullous drug eruption after second dose of mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine: Case report. Journal of Infection and Public Health. 2021; 14 (10): 1392-1394 Publisher Full Text
5. Alfishawy M, Elbendary A, Mohamed M, Nassar M: COVID-19 Mortality in Transplant Recipients.Int J Organ Transplant Med. 2020; 11 (4): 145-162 PubMed Abstract
6. Alfishawy M, Elbendary A, Younes A, Negm A, et al.: Diabetes mellitus and Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19) Associated Mucormycosis (CAM): A wake-up call from Egypt.Diabetes Metab Syndr. 15 (5): 102195 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Alfishawy M, Nso N, Nassar M, Ariyaratnam J, et al.: Liver transplantation during global COVID-19 pandemic.World J Clin Cases. 2021; 9 (23): 6608-6623 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Nassar M, Nso N, Ariyaratnam J, Sandhu J, et al.: Coronavirus disease 2019 and renal transplantation.World J Clin Cases. 2021; 9 (27): 7986-7997 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Thank you for the additional guidance. However, given the nature of this publication is a brief report we feel it would not be necessary to overburden the scope of the paper itself with this addition of the perceived diagram. Brief Reports are small, often preliminary studies, descriptions of unexpected and perhaps unexplained observations or lab protocols that can be described in a short report with a few illustrations (figures/tables), or even a single figure. https://f1000research.com/for-authors/article-guidelines/brief-report.

While qualitative investigation on the evolution of COVID-19 research is beyond the scope of our research, your suggestion of including a limitation section is deemed valuable for our research, and we discussed limitation of our approach in the revised edition. We also included two of the references you suggested in our revision. Thank you for suggesting the references.
Dear Dr Nassar,
Than you for your thoughtful comments (in plain fonts) on our paper. Here, we respond to your comments (in bold font).

Please justify the selection of the four viruses compared to COVID-19. I propose to make a comparison table with similarities and differences.
Justification for the selection of the four viruses is comparison of COVID-19 to a negative control group (HCV and HIV) without any recent breaks and to a positive control group (EVD and ZIKV) with recent breaks. We selected those viruses based on our familiarity with them. We have included a comparison table (Table 1) in the revision.

Please comment on why this article did not include other databases like Medline or Embase.
We have included our justification for the selection of PubMed in our study in Discussion.

Please mention other factors affecting that affect the number of publications (direct and indirect).
Surely public interests are one of the factors affecting the number of publications as noted in our paper. However, we are not aware of any other factors for sure, even though there must be various factors. For example, we expect that the number of researchers and number of journals in a particular field will affect the number of publications in the field. It will be of great interest recognizing those factors in future research.

Please comment on changes to the journals' publication policies, time, APC, indexing, etc.
Those factors must play a role in the trend of publications. However, we do not have any explanation for the point.

Please comment on the global quarantine, governmental closure, and the negative impact on developed and developing countries' economic and social aspects.
Thank you for the additional guidance. However, the nature of this paper is to forecast the number of publications in the future by analyzing the trends and not related to the global quarantine, governmental closure, and the negative impact on developed and developing countries' economic and social aspects. That is not to say these areas are any less important but we are chiefly concerned with the mathematical nature of the trends we saw from our gathering of publication counts on PubMed.

I suggest commenting on the trend or theme1 of research development of the diagnosis, prevention, COVID-19 complication, treatment, vaccination, COVID-19 vaccine-induced complications[ref2],3,4, COVID-19 variants, COVID-19 vaccination booster dose.
There are many publications as case reports, case series, descriptive, case-control, RCT, meta-analysis, and umbrella review. For each phase and with other comorbidities5,6,[ref7],8. NB: All citations are my own papers and for guidance. You do not need to cite them.
Please create a limitation section and mention these factors as a study limitation. At least try to mention these factors as limitations in the study.
I suggest creating a diagram to demonstrate the evolution of COVID-19 research.
References
1. Nassar M, Nso N, Alfishawy M, Novikov A, et al.: Current systematic reviews and meta-analyses of COVID-19.World J Virol. 2021; 10 (4): 182-208 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Nassar M, Chung H, Dhayaparan Y, Nyein A, et al.: COVID-19 vaccine induced rhabdomyolysis: Case report with literature review.Diabetes Metab Syndr. 15 (4): 102170 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Nassar M, Nso N, Gonzalez C, Lakhdar S, et al.: COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis: Case report with literature review.Diabetes Metab Syndr. 15 (5): 102205 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Kong J, Cuevas-Castillo F, Nassar M, Lei C, et al.: Bullous drug eruption after second dose of mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine: Case report. Journal of Infection and Public Health. 2021; 14 (10): 1392-1394 Publisher Full Text
5. Alfishawy M, Elbendary A, Mohamed M, Nassar M: COVID-19 Mortality in Transplant Recipients.Int J Organ Transplant Med. 2020; 11 (4): 145-162 PubMed Abstract
6. Alfishawy M, Elbendary A, Younes A, Negm A, et al.: Diabetes mellitus and Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19) Associated Mucormycosis (CAM): A wake-up call from Egypt.Diabetes Metab Syndr. 15 (5): 102195 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Alfishawy M, Nso N, Nassar M, Ariyaratnam J, et al.: Liver transplantation during global COVID-19 pandemic.World J Clin Cases. 2021; 9 (23): 6608-6623 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Nassar M, Nso N, Ariyaratnam J, Sandhu J, et al.: Coronavirus disease 2019 and renal transplantation.World J Clin Cases. 2021; 9 (27): 7986-7997 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Thank you for the additional guidance. However, given the nature of this publication is a brief report we feel it would not be necessary to overburden the scope of the paper itself with this addition of the perceived diagram. Brief Reports are small, often preliminary studies, descriptions of unexpected and perhaps unexplained observations or lab protocols that can be described in a short report with a few illustrations (figures/tables), or even a single figure. https://f1000research.com/for-authors/article-guidelines/brief-report.

While qualitative investigation on the evolution of COVID-19 research is beyond the scope of our research, your suggestion of including a limitation section is deemed valuable for our research, and we discussed limitation of our approach in the revised edition. We also included two of the references you suggested in our revision. Thank you for suggesting the references.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 27 Oct 2021

Ludovico Abenavoli, Department of Health Sciences, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.45188.r97764

General comments:

I read with interest this article. It provides data on the scientific production during the pandemic, with regards to 2020. The background is solid, the results have been discussed, and the conclusion supported the data.

Minor point:

I suggest to report the data stratified for original articles, review, brief report and letter to the editor related to COVID-19 topic.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Epidemiology of COVID-19, COVID-19 clinical aspects, COVID-19 research trends

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 25 Apr 2022

Jonghoon Kang, Biology, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, 31698, USA

25 Apr 2022

Author Response

Dear Dr. Abenavoli

We appreciate your time and effort for reviewing our paper. In the revised manuscript, we have included the data you suggested. We believe the added data ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Abenavoli

We appreciate your time and effort for reviewing our paper. In the revised manuscript, we have included the data you suggested. We believe the added data will enhance the quality of our work and thank you for the suggestions.
Dear Dr. Abenavoli

We appreciate your time and effort for reviewing our paper. In the revised manuscript, we have included the data you suggested. We believe the added data will enhance the quality of our work and thank you for the suggestions.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 25 Apr 2022

Jonghoon Kang, Biology, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, 31698, USA

25 Apr 2022

Author Response

Dear Dr. Abenavoli

We appreciate your time and effort for reviewing our paper. In the revised manuscript, we have included the data you suggested. We believe the added data ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Abenavoli

We appreciate your time and effort for reviewing our paper. In the revised manuscript, we have included the data you suggested. We believe the added data will enhance the quality of our work and thank you for the suggestions.
Dear Dr. Abenavoli

We appreciate your time and effort for reviewing our paper. In the revised manuscript, we have included the data you suggested. We believe the added data will enhance the quality of our work and thank you for the suggestions.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 12 Apr 2021

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 2 (revision) 21 Apr 22			read
Version 1 12 Apr 21	read	read

Ludovico Abenavoli, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy
Mahmoud Nassar, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai/NYC Health-Hospitals, Queens, USA; Queens Hospital Center, Queens, USA
Shizuka Uchida, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

21 Views

08 Sep 2022 | for Version 2

Shizuka Uchida, Center for RNA Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

21 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Not Approved

Figure 1. Given that the number of journals hosted by the PubMed database has increased significantly in recent years; so does the number of scientific journals in general. Thus, the y-axes in Figure 1, which are number of publications, do not truly reflect the extend of increase in number of publications for each virus; unless it is normalized to the total number of articles hosted in the PubMed database each year.
Given that COVID-19 is an unexceptional pandemic disease that has affected every corners of the world, it is not clear what the authors aim to clarify by simply counting the number of articles in the PubMed database and compared it to the numbers of other similar diseases. The authors should put more efforts in analyzing the content of the articles. Also, it has became clear that the number of retracted articles of COVID-19 is far more than any other diseases. Thus, this point must be discussed as well. Not to add more information, COVID-19 is the first disease that preprint servers (e.g., Biorxiv) have played an important role in raising the awareness (and also causing the number of retraction to be higher than any other years). This point should also be discussed.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Bioinformatics, cardiovascular

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

47 Views

01 Dec 2021 | for Version 1

Mahmoud Nassar, Medicine Department, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai/NYC Health-Hospitals, Queens, NY, USA; Queens Hospital Center, Queens, NY, USA

47 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Dear Authors
Thank you so much for your great effort. This is an interesting topic. Here are some opportunities for improvement:

Please justify the selection of the four viruses compared to COVID-19. I propose to make a comparison table with similarities and differences.
Please comment on why this article did not include other databases like Medline or Embase.
Please mention other factors affecting that affect the number of publications (direct and indirect).
Please comment on changes to the journals' publication policies, time, APC, indexing, etc.
Please comment on the global quarantine, governmental closure, and the negative impact on developed and developing countries' economic and social aspects.
I suggest commenting on the trend or theme¹ of research development of the diagnosis, prevention, COVID-19 complication, treatment, vaccination, COVID-19 vaccine-induced complications[ref2]^,³^,⁴, COVID-19 variants, COVID-19 vaccination booster dose.
There are many publications as case reports, case series, descriptive, case-control, RCT, meta-analysis, and umbrella review. For each phase and with other comorbidities⁵^,⁶^,[ref7]^,⁸. NB: All citations are my own papers and for guidance. You do not need to cite them.
Please create a limitation section and mention these factors as a study limitation. At least try to mention these factors as limitations in the study.
I suggest creating a diagram to demonstrate the evolution of COVID-19 research.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Clinical research, COVID-19, Cardiovascular Diabetes, and Organ transplantation.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

25 Apr 2022

Jonghoon Kang, Biology, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, 31698, USA

Dear Dr Nassar,
Than you for your thoughtful comments (in plain fonts) on our paper. Here, we respond to your comments (in bold font).

Please justify the selection of the four viruses compared to COVID-19. I propose to make a comparison table with similarities and differences.
Justification for the selection of the four viruses is comparison of COVID-19 to a negative control group (HCV and HIV) without any recent breaks and to a positive control group (EVD and ZIKV) with recent breaks. We selected those viruses based on our familiarity with them. We have included a comparison table (Table 1) in the revision.

Please comment on why this article did not include other databases like Medline or Embase.
We have included our justification for the selection of PubMed in our study in Discussion.

Please mention other factors affecting that affect the number of publications (direct and indirect).
Surely public interests are one of the factors affecting the number of publications as noted in our paper. However, we are not aware of any other factors for sure, even though there must be various factors. For example, we expect that the number of researchers and number of journals in a particular field will affect the number of publications in the field. It will be of great interest recognizing those factors in future research.

Please comment on changes to the journals' publication policies, time, APC, indexing, etc.
Those factors must play a role in the trend of publications. However, we do not have any explanation for the point.

Please comment on the global quarantine, governmental closure, and the negative impact on developed and developing countries' economic and social aspects.
Thank you for the additional guidance. However, the nature of this paper is to forecast the number of publications in the future by analyzing the trends and not related to the global quarantine, governmental closure, and the negative impact on developed and developing countries' economic and social aspects. That is not to say these areas are any less important but we are chiefly concerned with the mathematical nature of the trends we saw from our gathering of publication counts on PubMed.

I suggest commenting on the trend or theme1 of research development of the diagnosis, prevention, COVID-19 complication, treatment, vaccination, COVID-19 vaccine-induced complications[ref2],3,4, COVID-19 variants, COVID-19 vaccination booster dose.
There are many publications as case reports, case series, descriptive, case-control, RCT, meta-analysis, and umbrella review. For each phase and with other comorbidities5,6,[ref7],8. NB: All citations are my own papers and for guidance. You do not need to cite them.
Please create a limitation section and mention these factors as a study limitation. At least try to mention these factors as limitations in the study.
I suggest creating a diagram to demonstrate the evolution of COVID-19 research.
References
1. Nassar M, Nso N, Alfishawy M, Novikov A, et al.: Current systematic reviews and meta-analyses of COVID-19.World J Virol. 2021; 10 (4): 182-208 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Nassar M, Chung H, Dhayaparan Y, Nyein A, et al.: COVID-19 vaccine induced rhabdomyolysis: Case report with literature review.Diabetes Metab Syndr. 15 (4): 102170 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Nassar M, Nso N, Gonzalez C, Lakhdar S, et al.: COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis: Case report with literature review.Diabetes Metab Syndr. 15 (5): 102205 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Kong J, Cuevas-Castillo F, Nassar M, Lei C, et al.: Bullous drug eruption after second dose of mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine: Case report. Journal of Infection and Public Health. 2021; 14 (10): 1392-1394 Publisher Full Text
5. Alfishawy M, Elbendary A, Mohamed M, Nassar M: COVID-19 Mortality in Transplant Recipients.Int J Organ Transplant Med. 2020; 11 (4): 145-162 PubMed Abstract
6. Alfishawy M, Elbendary A, Younes A, Negm A, et al.: Diabetes mellitus and Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19) Associated Mucormycosis (CAM): A wake-up call from Egypt.Diabetes Metab Syndr. 15 (5): 102195 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Alfishawy M, Nso N, Nassar M, Ariyaratnam J, et al.: Liver transplantation during global COVID-19 pandemic.World J Clin Cases. 2021; 9 (23): 6608-6623 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Nassar M, Nso N, Ariyaratnam J, Sandhu J, et al.: Coronavirus disease 2019 and renal transplantation.World J Clin Cases. 2021; 9 (27): 7986-7997 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Thank you for the additional guidance. However, given the nature of this publication is a brief report we feel it would not be necessary to overburden the scope of the paper itself with this addition of the perceived diagram. Brief Reports are small, often preliminary studies, descriptions of unexpected and perhaps unexplained observations or lab protocols that can be described in a short report with a few illustrations (figures/tables), or even a single figure. https://f1000research.com/for-authors/article-guidelines/brief-report.

While qualitative investigation on the evolution of COVID-19 research is beyond the scope of our research, your suggestion of including a limitation section is deemed valuable for our research, and we discussed limitation of our approach in the revised edition. We also included two of the references you suggested in our revision. Thank you for suggesting the references.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

21 Views

27 Oct 2021 | for Version 1

Ludovico Abenavoli, Department of Health Sciences, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy

21 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Epidemiology of COVID-19, COVID-19 clinical aspects, COVID-19 research trends

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Etienne CF, Fitzgerald J, Almeida G, et al.: COVID-19: transformative actions for more equitable, resilient, sustainable societies and health systems in the Americas. BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Aug; 5(8): e003509. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] 2. Hsiang W, Forman H, Jain S, et al.: COVID-19 testing capabilities at urgent care centers in states with greatest disease burden [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Res. 2020; 9: 328. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] 3. Kang J, Purnell CB: Implications for undergraduate education of two interdisciplinary biological sciences: biochemistry and biophysics. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011 Summer; 10(2): 111–112. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[4] 4. Kang J, Park S, Venkat A, et al.: Quantitative Analysis of the Trends Exhibited by the Three Interdisciplinary Biological Sciences: Biophysics, Bioinformatics, and Systems Biology. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2015 Dec 1; 16(2): 198–202. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. Kang J, Clifton EC: Quantitative Analysis of Food Science Trends. J Food Sci. 2018 Oct; 83(10): 2405–2406. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Kang J, Daines JR, Warren AN, et al.: Epigenetics for the 21st-Century Biology Student. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2019 Dec 18; 20(3): 20.3.56. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[7] 7. Kang J, Song S, Cowan ML: Comment on Metabolomics for a Millenniums-Old Crop: Tea Plant (Camellia sinensis). J Agric Food Chem. 2020 Jan 15; 68(2): 697–698. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Kang J, Kang AM: Trend of the research on rare earth elements in environmental science. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2020 May; 27(13): 14318–14321. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Kang J, Kang E, Cowan ML: Number of PubMed-indexed articles related to five viruses; SARS-CoV-2, HCV, HIV, Ebola, and Zika. Figshare, V3. 2020. Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Mukhtar NA, Ness EM, Jhaveri M, et al.: Epidemiologic features of a large hepatitis C cohort evaluated in a major health system in the western United States. Ann Hepatol. 2019 Mar-Apr; 18(2): 360–365. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Buchacz K, Armon C, Palella FJ Jr, et al.: HIV Outpatient Study (HOPS) Investigators. The HIV Outpatient Study-25 Years of HIV Patient Care and Epidemiologic Research. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Apr 11; 7(5): ofaa123. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] 12. Alter MJ: Epidemiology of hepatitis C virus infection. World J Gastroenterol. 2007 May 7; 13(17): 2436–41. Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Assefa Y, Gilks CF: Ending the epidemic of HIV/AIDS by 2030: Will there be an endgame to HIV, or an endemic HIV requiring an integrated health systems response in many countries? Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Nov; 100: 273–277. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Kamorudeen RT, Adedokun KA, Olarinmoye AO: Ebola outbreak in West Africa, 2014-2016: Epidemic timeline, differential diagnoses, determining factors, and lessons for future response. J Infect Public Health. 2020 Jul; 13(7): 956–962. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Madewell ZJ, López MR, Espinosa-Bode A, et al.: Inverse association between dengue, chikungunya, and Zika virus infection and indicators of household air pollution in Santa Rosa, Guatemala: A case-control study, 2011-2018. PLoS One. 2020 Jun 19; 15(6): e0234399. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] 16. Kang J, Cowan ML: Number of COVID-related publications in each publication type according to PubMed.Figshare, V5.2022. Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Nassar M: Peer Review Report For: Temporal development of research publications on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research . 2021; 10: 283. Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. McKeever L, Nguyen V, Peterson SJ, et al.:Demystifying the Search Button: A Comprehensive PubMed Search Strategy for Performing an Exhaustive Literature Review.JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr.2015 Aug;39(6):622–635. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Turchin P, Currie TE, Whitehouse H, et al.:Quantitative historical analysis uncovers a single dimension of complexity that structures global variation in human social organization.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018;115(2):E144–E151. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Larremore DB, Clauset A:Why predicting the future is more than just horseplay. In Krakauer DC (ed). Worlds Hidden in Plain Sight. NM, Santa Fe: Santa Fe Institute Press; 2019.

[21] 21. Nassar M, Chung H, Dhayaparan Y, et al.:COVID-19 vaccine induced rhabdomyolysis: Case report with literature review.Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research and Reviews.2021;15(4):102170. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Nassar M, Nso N, Gonzalez C, et al.:COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis: Case report with literature review [published correction appears in Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2021 Sep-Oct;15(5):102277]. Diabetes Metab Syndr.2021;15(5):102205. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Temporal development of research publications on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Table 1. Comparison of five viruses.

Methods

Results

Figure 1. Number of research publications related to five viruses.

Table 2. Fitting parameters (a, b, and c) and associated standard errors (SE) and the squared Pearson correlation coefficients (R2).

(Equation 1)

(Equation 2)

Discussion

Data availability

Underlying data

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Table 2. Fitting parameters (a, b, and c) and associated standard errors (SE) and the squared Pearson correlation coefficients (R²).