• COVID-19
• Other research productsclose
• 2014-2023close
• Other ORP type close
• English close

Currently, there are metadata schemas (such as DataCite, or DDI) that can describe the concrete outputs of research, e.g., papers and datasets, but relatively little work has been done on finding a metadata schema for the research itself. The problem is that different disciplines have vastly different ways of organising research activities, for instance because of differences in funding models and mechanisms, or in requirements for approval, and thus differences in how and when research is split into discrete activities and labelled.

Background: From early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it was clear that vaccines would be necessary to stop the spread and severity of the virus. Many jurisdictions established COVID-vaccine-specific websites or web content to help inform their citizens about the vaccines. Although some criteria exist for analyzing health-related communication, there are few clear evaluative frameworks specifically for analyzing websites and even fewer specifically for vaccine information. Objective: Based on existing criteria and best practices in public health communication, my study aims to develop more comprehensive criteria for analyzing official, public-facing, public health/government websites about vaccination and then apply those criteria to select COVID-19 vaccine websites. Methods: I use content analysis methodology to develop vaccine website criteria and to evaluate websites. Using pre-existing frameworks and evaluative tools, incorporating current best practices in risk communication, and consulting with experts in the field, I developed a concise set of criteria for vaccine websites. I used these criteria to evaluate seven websites from Canada and the United States. Results: From my analysis, I identified ten criteria (functionality, accessibility, authorship, purpose, funding source, privacy policy, content quality, currency, unbiased, references) and organized them into three themes (usable, transparent, and helpful) and three tiers of website navigation. My application of these criteria against seven websites showed that individual websites scored well in a few criteria. However, there is much room for improvement, particularly in ensuring that information is unbiased, being transparent about funding sources, and ensuring that websites are accessible. Discussion and Conclusion: Fifteen recommendations are provided to support public health organizations in communicating with the public to help them make informed decisions to stay safe and healthy. These recommendations and the criteria on which they are based are intertwined and inextricable from their greater context. Consequently, these recommendations would be most effective when combined with other risk communication interventions.

This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/8275863. This review reflects comments and contributions from Melissa Chim, Nicolás Hinrichs, Allie Tatarian, Ashley Farley, Yueh Cho, and Stephen Gabrielson. Review synthesized by Stephen Gabrielson. Rong and Waltman undertoook a global survey of authors who published between 2021 and early 2022 to capture their thoughts and behaviors regarding preprinting. Major comments: We do not have any major comments regarding this preprint Minor comments: Preprinting is presented as both protective of scooping and associated with a risk of scooping; I think within the growing practice this is not just unresolved, but a crucial topic that abounds in conversations. It should therefore be addressed explicitly if contradictory claims are already being reported. +1 to above. There are a few different topics that are viewed as both benefit and harm by respondents, such as establishing priority vs getting scooped, accelerating research communication vs premature media coverage, and more citations/showing progress for grants/jobs vs lack of recognition. Acknowledging or expounding upon these contradictions could add to the impact of this paper. I agree with the previous comments of the dichotomy of risks and benefits. There is a lot to potentially unpack here and is most likely a suggestion for a future study. I would have loved to see the survey include more about citing preprints. I appreciate that it was highlighted that the survey was inspired by previous surveys on preprints. However, to better track perspectives and behaviors over time it could be better to use the same survey instrument. And if the previous surveys had gaps that needed to be addressed it would be useful to describe those gaps. I appreciate that a more global perspective was taken, as research is truly a global enterprise. Was the response rate higher in Europe due to more & stronger OA/OS policies? This could motivate the reason for responding. The career stage data makes sense and is interesting to me. A potential limitation that would be worth mentioning is that survey respondents were picked by being a published author. I would assume that this would negate researchers who haven't published yet or often. It was good to see common assumptions/experiences of preprinting in certain disciplines be confirmed with data. In section 2.1, I appreciate the space savings in referencing the survey form, but having already described its parts, albeit it having only 10 questions on preprinting, I think it would have been better to include them here. In section 2.2, I believe the authors assume that "deduplicated" is a known term? I'd appreciate having it explained here. In section 3.1, half of the survey participants reported learning about preprinting from reading preprints. I found this very interesting and wonder if preprints will play a bigger role in coursework/formal training. In section 3.1 under "Experience with posting preprints", the authors refer to whether ResearchGate is a preprint server. Some readers will likely not be familiar with this debate. I would either drop this parenthetical or expand upon this idea. ResearchGate is not included in any preprint server list I have seen in the last several years. You can include a preprint in your ResearchGate profile, but the preprint is already submitted to a preprint server to get a DOI. If this is the case, can we consider ResearchGate a preprint server? In section 3.1 under "Experience with posting preprints", the authors note that 15% of participants had posted their work as a preprint after it had been accepted by a journal. I didn't think that many journals allow for this. Or are authors doing this regardless of journal policies? I suppose they could be aligned with journal policies, but I would assume that those are already OA publications. The term postprint is typically defined as the accepted, peer-reviewed version of a manuscript submitted to a journal. I would consider postprints to be a separate, distinct research output. In section 3.1 under "Willingness to post preprints", I am surprised that COVID-19 pandemic did not cause a major shift in preprinting for the medical and health sciences. It would be interesting to see COVID-19-related topics compared to others in medical and health sciences subject. I found the survey responses in section 3.1 under "Benefits of preprinting" to be interesting. Open science is being framed very closely with citizen science in niches such as digital humanities, etc. I really like figures 8-10, but I'm worried they won't be legible to colorblind readers. A yellow-blue, magenta-green, or red-white gradient would be more accessible. Same concerns for the other figures as well. In section 3.1 under "Concerns about preprinting", I think I know what "premature media coverage" means but I'm not sure I completely get it. Does it have to do with journalists reporting on a non-peer-reviewed item? Or is it more about announcing something too soon? Or does it potentially take away excitement for the final version of record? I feel like there is a lot to unpack here. Section 3.1 on "Concerns about preprinting" is a great section on attitudes toward preprints. In regard to the respondents concern around self-plagiarism with journal submission, I don't know whether the author's experiences are typical or not. The plagiarism check is part of the initial check for quality of the received manuscript. Reviewers are unlikely to check for plagiarism. In section 3.1 under "Encouraging preprinting", the idea of not encouraging or opposing preprinting due to lack of peer review and low credibility of preprints is an interesting dynamic. What harm is being made? The same article could be published somewhere and may be found to be unsubstantiated post publication. In section 4.1, I would like to see a discussion about whether these differences between research areas in the preprinting adoption are due to how dominance of the major journals in respective area. In section 4.2, I find "integrating preprinting in journal submission workflows" to be an interesting recommendation that needs more detail. If most authors are publishing in the top 5 commercial publishers and the preprints are submitted through their workflows this could become an issue. One of the strengths of preprint servers now are that they are journal agnostic and independent from publisher business models. We should protect this. From my perspective, seeing this as a common response means that researchers have a hard time thinking past the concept of a journal. Instead, we are just layering on complexities while still trudging through the traditional publishing process. In this scenario the benefits become more limited. Also in section 4.2, would it be possible to include preprints in tenure portfolios as part of the second recommendation? Also in section 4.2, I'm not sure if these recommendations are ordered in terms of importance, but the third recommendation on "Developing new approaches for quality assurance and peer review of preprint" would be my number one. Also in section 4.2, these guidelines can help researchers eliminate their doubts on scooping. It could also be an opportunity to include librarians for providing education on citation practices and copyright issues. The data availability section should also include a direct link to the data: https://zenodo.org/record/8186558. Comments on reporting: Very much appreciated the availability of the data and the survey instrument. It was quite easy to access and assess. Suggestions for future studies: I think there's an opportunity for future studies on how the Chinese respondents' experiences differed from those in the rest of the world (e.g. 58% knew about preprints through submitting to a journal). Another opportunity may be to explore the role of librarians in promoting preprints in higher education institutions, and how it can be incorporated into formal training. +1 to the above comment, plus generally delving into why differences are seen in different parts of the world. There are a few potential avenues for this - are preprints less beneficial/more risky in some parts of the world or for some types of labs? Are preprints simply more well-advertised in the US? It would be interesting to map the survey results by region to the preprinting encouragement or requirement from funders/institutions in that region. I agree with doing research on why the differences exist. It would be interesting to know what determines the preference of a particular preprint server by users in a particular region and if researchers prefer preprint servers with a broader scope as compared to those for specific research areas. The overrepresentation of senior researchers could be overcome by sending survey invitations to the first authors, who may not make a decision to preprinting their manuscript, but have discussions about it with the corresponding author. Competing interests The author declares that they have no competing interests.

This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/8232591. This review reflects comments and contributions from Melissa Chim, Philip N. Cohen, Martyn Rittman, Stephen Gabrielson, Yueh Cho, Jonny Coates, Nicolás Hinrichs, and Kim Powell. Review synthesized by Stephen Gabrielson. This study argues that media coverage of preprints saw an unprecedented increase due to Covid-19. The authors give a thorough review of preprint coverage pre-pandemic, and demonstrate the paradigm shift in media coverage during the pandemic. This manuscript carefully discusses the trend of preprints through Covid-19 era, and summarizes the media coverage of these preprints shifting among different sources. Major comments: I am very impressed by the breadth of research these authors performed. I also appreciate the universality of their writing-although it focuses on science, I can see academics in the Humanities be inspired by this type of research. Thank you for sharing this work. I appreciated that the authors systematically addressed this phenomenon with consideration of the time of preprint posting, preprint servers, topic correlation to Covid-19 for the preprinted side, and the professional specialty of reporters among the different media outlets to cover preprints from 2014-2021. In addition, in this post-Covid-19 era, we paid more attention to the quality of preprints, like the manuscripts submitted to the journal, and the quality of media coverage to share the contents of preprints to the public. This is a very interesting article. The authors have systematically organized the various components of their work giving it a good flow. The authors' meticulous methodology is remarkable, considering all relevant factors and variables included in a study on this topic, amounting to a considerable contribution towards preprint culture. Minor comments: The definition of "publication" could be clearer. Eg: "publication date within seven days of the published version's publication date." I note that posting a preprint is "publishing" it. It would be helpful to clarify terms and specify when you're referring to journal publication versus preprint publication. It is unclear to me how the corpus of WoS articles were selected? All articles mentioned in the 94 pubs? Limited to certain disciplines? Need a little more explanation. In statistical reporting, the numerators and denominators are not clear in the term "share", eg Table 6. Maybe there are discipline differences, but I (sociologist) expect "shares" to sum to 100%. The table note just uses "share" without specifying numerator and denominator. I wonder if the authors explored expanding their preprint data source from the four preprint servers mentioned in their study, to also include EuropePMC or perhaps Research Square, which is one of the eligible preprint servers under the NIH Preprint Pilot. Doing some quick checking, there are COVID-19 preprints there. So I think more discussion on their reasoning of selecting preprint servers would be helpful. I would like to see more discussion about the possibility of changes in behavior by authors and preprint servers. Given the urgency during the pandemic, more news-worthy preprints were probably being posted and a new set of high-profile authors who hadn't posted preprints before were starting to, which would increase the proportion of preprint mentions. At the same time, preprints servers were probably becoming more conservative with their evaluations of preprints and not posting lower quality studies due to the possibility of a negative impact — I was in this situation and became more cautious. These are certainly smaller effects than the choices made by journalists and possible drivers for their change in behavior, but seem worthy of discussion. I'd like to see data comparing larger organisations with smaller outlets - the expertise/presence of science-focussed journalists likely differs and may impact the amount of coverage. I'd also like to see political leanings of the organisations and if this impacted coverage, though this is by no means required for this preprint. The authors should highlight confounding variables to their study especially in addressing RQ1. Generally, COVID-19 articles would be trending during a pandemic hence journalist norms could have been influenced by the expectation of their audience. Is it possible to clarify that such confounding variables did not affect the conclusion of the study? I'd appreciate incorporating more granular distinctions between types of institutions or groupings of entities that authors are affiliated with as having particular -perhaps idiosyncratic, even- stances and/or norms. I would like to know why the term "News 52" is highlighted in the keywords section. In the introduction section on line 66, I think it would be worthwhile to mention that Altmetric data relies on DOI tracking. On line 67, would this also be an appropriate place to mention that bioRxiv was founded in 2013, and medRxiv not until 2019? On line 71, arXiv launched in 1991, and the manuscript mentions MedRxiv launched in 2019 at line 281. The founding of bioRxiv and SSRN are not mentioned. This could be useful information to include in the Introduction (and mentioning MedRxiv founding earlier). Beginning on line 186, the authors discuss how they filtered news outlets that covered a high volume of research. I do wonder if there is a difference between those outlets and outlets that cover smaller volumes of research? One may expect the bigger outlets to be better equipped at dealing with preprints. The cut off of 100 mentions per year seems arbitrary. How many outlets were identified overall? What percentage of the total outlets does this represent? On line 220, how were reliable publication dates for each server assessed? On line 438, the authors discuss how news media drew on particular servers based on their interest. Could it also be explained by a change in behaviour of authors: that they were sending more news-worthy preprints to bioRxiv/medRxiv? Media and journalism content is generally driven by the audience. Could this have been a confounding variable that could have contributed to the shift in journalism norm? During the COVID-19 pandemic, information on COVID-19 was "selling" hence could have been a drivingnfluence for the paradigm shift? For section 4.3, I wonder about how coverage was different or not for the types of COVID article - e.g. immunology v epidemiology etc. On line 469, it may be helpful to break down the outlets based on political leaning too - did right wing outlets cover less science than left-wing outlets? I do remember a study addressing a similar question. Beginning on line 502, has this shift in journalistic norms and practices continued? The authors may be able to comment on that without requiring additional data. On line 572, the authors do a good job of clearly stating the limitations of their work. Comments on reporting: On line 250, the exact date of Web of Science data collection would be good to know. Suggestions for future studies: Beginning on line 548, I appreciate this nod to future studies here. The authors do an excellent job throughout incorporating philosophy into their research. Competing interests The author declares that they have no competing interests.

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted a significant shift in the focus of international student migration (ISM) literature towards understanding and addressing the profound impact of the pandemic on international students. However, the existing literature primarily centers on their lived experiences within the host country, often overlooking the current reality of these students whose lives may transcend traditional geographical borders of nation-states. Despite the transnational nature of their lives enabled by accessible modes of transportation and the rapid development of online media technologies, this aspect remains inadequately acknowledged. To address this gap, adopting a transnational lens that scrutinizes localities in more than one nation-state and replaces dichotomies (home countries versus host countries) with the notions of fluidity can be helpful to illuminate a more nuanced and richer account (Nowicka, 2020; Toukan et al., 2020). Using life history interviews as the primary research method and a transnational lens as the theory, this paper aims to examine 1) the reported lived experiences of Chinese international students in Canada, especially during the pandemic period, and 2) how these lived experiences affect them in terms of their developing transnational identities? The results shed light on the struggles, challenges, and personal growth encountered by Chinese international students within the context of the pandemic, highlighting the complex, dynamic, and in-becoming nature of their transnational identity.

Caregivers play integral roles in providing care and support to individuals who are facing end of life. It’s imperative that health care professionals working in palliative care understand their lived experiences in order to provide appropriate support and address their needs. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted people globally and changed the ways in which people provide and receive care. This phenomenological study explored the lived experiences of bereaved caregivers who provided care to a loved who was at the end of their life during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with five bereaved caregivers. Thematic analysis was completed to analyze the data and five key themes were identified. 1) Impact of caregiving and the implications of public health orders, 2) interrupted grief and commemoration during a pandemic, 3) challenges with the health care system, 4) people make the difference, and 5) recommendations through reflections. Sub-themes within each key theme were identified. A detailed review of the findings, a discussion and recommendations are presented after a thorough review of the literature and discussion of the methodology and methods which informed this phenomenological study.

The European Institute of the Mediterranean (IEMed) within the framework of theproject “EuroMeSCo Connecting the dots” launched the survey on “Towards more social justice and inclusiveness in the Mediterranean” to reflect on the social dimension of the New Agenda for the Mediterranean and on inclusiveness in the Southern Mediterranean Countries (SMCs). The survey targets respondents from the EU and SMCs, including policymakers, experts, and civil society representatives.This brief paper critically reads some of the indicators mapped in the mentioned survey and places them in the regional, political and socioeconomic context. The paper focuses on contextualising the most visible causes of socioeconomic inequalities, as reported by the survey respondents.

In the world of cutting-edge science, EU-OS/Fraunhofer ITMP spearheads a groundbreaking project to consolidate data from EU-OS partner sites for the 'Open Imaging Data Sharing in EOSC/COVID-19 as Demonstrator.' Their mission: to create Knowledge Graphs revealing the intricate links between chemotype-phenotype of diseases. However, the journey is no easy feat, as they grapple with scientific challenges like entity name discrepancies and reproducible workflows. Yet, with unwavering determination, they seek suitable infrastructures to bring their visionary project to life, reshaping the landscape of medical research.

This discussion brings together Gascia Ouzounian and Matilde Meireles, collaborators on the research project Sonorous Cities: Towards a Sonic Urbanism. They discuss Meireles’s Sunnyside, a composition that was recorded entirely in Meireles’s home in Belfast during the initial Covid-19 lockdowns. Sunnyside is a reflection both on the under-appreciated sounds of domestic spaces, and on the relationship of domestic spaces to wider urban infrastructures. They further reflect on Recomposing the City, a research network founded in 2013 by Ouzounian and architect Sarah Lappin which has brought together numerous sound artists, architects and urbanists in examining questions around sound and urbanism.

This paper presents a prototype of a disinfection system for public transport specifically aiming to disinfect surfaces contaminated with the SARS-CoV-2 virus on buses using 222 nm wavelength far-ultraviolet light (far-UVC). Our study involved testing the developed technical system installed in a 12 m long M3 category urban bus, an investigation of optimal far-UVC light angles, and the determination of disinfection parameters for bus seat disinfection. The study identified the ideal positioning of a light source for effective disinfection and analyzed three disinfection scenarios, considering zone coverage, disinfection time, and energy demand. A subsystem employing real-time occupancy monitoring enhances the disinfection process in crowded areas of buses. An energy efficiency assessment model is proposed for optimizing energy consumption. Furthermore, the energy consumption analyses in different disinfection scenarios provide valuable insights for optimizing energy usage in public transport disinfection.