Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.
Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, West Midlands, UK.
J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Jul 13;35(27):e256. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e256.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a large volume of publications, a barrage of non-reviewed preprints on various professional repositories and a slew of retractions in a short amount of time.
We conducted an e-survey using a cloud-based website to gauge the potential sources of trustworthy information and misinformation and analyzed researchers', clinicians', and academics' attitude toward unpublished items, and pre- and post-publication quality checks in this challenging time.
Among 128 respondents (mean age, 43.2 years; M:F, 1.1:1), 60 (46.9%) were scholarly journal editors and editorial board members. Social media channels were distinguished as the most important sources of information as well as misinformation (81 [63.3%] and 86 [67.2%]). Nearly two in five (62, 48.4%) respondents blamed reviewers, editors, and misinterpretation by readers as additional contributors alongside authors for misinformation. A higher risk of plagiarism was perceived by the majority (70, 58.6%), especially plagiarism of ideas (64.1%) followed by inappropriate paraphrasing (54.7%). Opinion was divided on the utility of preprints for changing practice and changing retraction rates during the pandemic period, and higher rejections were not supported by most (76.6%) while the importance of peer review was agreed upon by a majority (80, 62.5%). More stringent screening by journal editors (61.7%), and facilitating open access plagiarism software (59.4%), including Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based algorithms (43.8%) were among the suggested solutions. Most (74.2%) supported the need to launch a specialist bibliographic database for COVID-19, with information indexed (62.3%), available as open-access (82.8%), after expanding search terms (52.3%) and following due verification by academics (66.4%), and journal editors (52.3%).
While identifying social media as a potential source of misinformation on COVID-19, and a perceived high risk of plagiarism, more stringent peer review and skilled post-publication promotion are advisable. Journal editors should play a more active role in streamlining publication and promotion of trustworthy information on COVID-19.
2019 年冠状病毒病（COVID-19）大流行导致了大量文献的发表，各种专业存储库上涌现出大量未经审查的预印本，在短时间内撤回了大量论文。
我们使用基于云的网站进行了一项电子调查，以评估潜在的可信信息和错误信息来源，并分析了研究人员、临床医生和学者在这个充满挑战的时期对未发表项目、预印本和发表后质量检查的态度。
在 128 名受访者中（平均年龄 43.2 岁；男女比例 1.1:1），60 名（46.9%）为学术期刊编辑和编委会成员。社交媒体渠道被认为是最重要的信息来源，也是错误信息的来源（81[63.3%]和 86[67.2%]）。近五分之二（62 名，48.4%）的受访者将审稿人、编辑和读者的错误解释归咎于作者之外的错误信息的额外贡献者。大多数人认为抄袭风险较高（70 名，58.6%），尤其是观念抄袭（64.1%），其次是不恰当的释义（54.7%）。对于预印本在改变实践和改变大流行期间的撤稿率的效用，意见存在分歧，大多数人不支持更高的拒稿率（76.6%），而大多数人同意同行评审的重要性（80 名，62.5%）。期刊编辑更严格的筛选（61.7%），以及促进开放获取抄袭软件（59.4%），包括人工智能（AI）为基础的算法（43.8%）是建议的解决方案之一。大多数人（74.2%）支持为 COVID-19 建立一个专门的文献数据库，这些信息将被索引（62.3%），并作为开放获取（82.8%）提供，方法是扩大搜索词（52.3%），并由学者（66.4%）和期刊编辑（52.3%）进行适当验证。
虽然将社交媒体确定为 COVID-19 错误信息的潜在来源，并认为抄袭的风险很高，但更严格的同行评审和熟练的发表后推广是明智的选择。期刊编辑应在简化 COVID-19 可信信息的出版和推广方面发挥更积极的作用。
