Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

How COVID-19 Has Changed How Research Is Published and Consumed

By Lauren Westafer, DO, MPH | on May 18, 2021 | 0 Comment
Practice Changers
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

The need for expedient knowledge translation became apparent early in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians quickly found themselves in the midst of an “infodemic” as well—a torrent of misinformation and poor-quality information that was, at times, difficult to distinguish from trustworthy science. Peer-reviewed journals, which often take months to review and edit manuscripts prior to online “early view” publication, faced a record volume of submissions and intense pressure to publish quickly. Here, Michael Callaham, MD, Editor in Chief of Annals of Emergency Medicine, and Henry Wang, MD, MS, Editor in Chief of the Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open, discuss the impact of these competing forces on the journals.

You Might Also Like
  • Research, Treatment, and Knowledge Generation During a Global Health Emergency
  • Get the Latest Research In the April Annals
  • Utilize ACEP’s Updated COVID-19 Resources
Explore This Issue
ACEP Now: Vol 40 – No 05 – May 2021

LW: The COVID-19 pandemic seems to have created a thirst for knowledge and a surge of manuscripts both preprint and peer-reviewed. How have you balanced the need for immediate knowledge with the desire for quality?

HW: We published the first issue of JACEP Open in early 2020, just as the pandemic was starting. We soon recognized that, given JACEP Open’s open-access format, we had an important opportunity—and obligation—to quickly disseminate information about COVID-19. We rallied our editorial resources to solicit and rapidly publish as many COVID-19 manuscripts as possible. We had to quickly add 10 new editors to our editorial board to ensure reasonable workloads and to maintain high-quality editorial oversight. Bear in mind that this surge of submissions occurred during the nascent phase of JACEP Open, a period where we expected to be striving to calibrate and achieve consistent editorial decisions.

LW: Has your view on the need or utility of preprints changed at all throughout the pandemic?

MC: I gained more experience with this than I’d had previously. One of my first papers to release as preprint was one of the few of quality [that we received]. I’ve concluded that the urgency or importance of the paper needs to be really solid to justify us preprinting something, and no one has solved the problem that quality review, revision, and selection take time and effort, often at a time when editors are overextended anyhow. Editors should remember that validity and quality are probably more important than novelty; the latter is worthless if the usual review process is bypassed. You’ll notice that even the biggest and most elite journals with the most resources made some astounding mistakes in their urge to be first out the gate.

Preprints, Pandemic, & Peer Review

LW: What about your views on open-access articles or the role of open-access journals during the pandemic—has this changed?

HW: Open access is an important publication model and potentially the scientific journal format of the future. Many of our customers delight in the fact that their accepted articles are accessible by anyone anywhere in the world. This is particularly important as we strive to connect with a diverse range of readers, many of whom do not have access to institutional subscriptions.

LW: Have you noticed any important changes or patterns in manuscripts?

MC: We have found the average quality of submissions on COVID is lower than our average. … Busy and overloaded clinicians and researchers respond to, “Quick, let’s find something to publish right now,” rather than, “This is complicated and needs a lot of expertise and evaluation—what a drag.”

LW: Do you think the ways in which clinicians are consuming articles have changed?

HW: Social media will continue to play an influential role in spreading the word about scientific papers. Today’s readers want information in as concise a format as possible. We need to continue reconceptualizing the format of the medical journals and articles so that they will be accessible to tomorrow’s readers.

MC: Probably, and that’s not a good thing. It is human nature to overlook the weaknesses of preprints in particular, even when you are aware of it and promise yourself you won’t succumb. The big journals have proven that wrong information can be promulgated, and clinicians have a hard time keeping in mind the separation between slow, thorough, high-quality peer review and the other kind. There is a reason that our peer-review process is the complex, slow test of veracity that it has been for some 200 years. What’s more important: to treat the patient fast or to give them the right and beneficial treatment? During COVID as well as normal times, our top priority is first do no harm. And that can seldom be assured with the first preliminary studies of a potential treatment.

Pages: 1 2 | Single Page

Topics: coronavirusCOVID-19JournalsResearch

Related

  • Dr. Joe Sachs and “The Pitt” Are Redefining Public Health Education Through Storytelling

    June 11, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • ACEP4U: Reinventing Research Education

    June 11, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • June 2025 News from the College

    June 5, 2025 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: June 2025 (Digital)

Read More

No Responses to “How COVID-19 Has Changed How Research Is Published and Consumed”

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*

Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603