Skip to content

Tag: COVID-19

Published on

Using 3D printed models is becoming increasingly common for both surgical procedures planning and surgical training. Three dimensional models can help surgeons develop surgical plans by providing better visualization and understanding of the anatomical structures than CT or other imaging alone. In training, 3D printed surgical simulators can have advantages over other methods, such as cadavers, animal models, or virtual reality training.

Image of surgical team with 3D printed skull
Image by Formlabs, Inc on Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/161389331@N04/46066892645

To create a 3D model for surgical planning, imaging studies are converted to a file type that can be rendered as a 3D object. The file is edited to exclude unwanted structures and printed. A recent meta-analysis (Yammine, 2022) of 13 randomized controlled trials found that operative duration, intraoperative blood loss and fluoroscopy use were improved for those that used 3D models for surgical planning of fracture management and the rates of excellent/good overall results and anatomic fracture reduction were significantly higher.  

A randomized controlled trial published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (Zhang, 2022)  compared the outcomes of clavicular fracture repair by experienced and inexperienced surgeons using 3D printing or just CT scans. The authors were particularly interested in how the findings could be applied in low and middle income country settings where surgeons may have limited skills and experience. 3D printing has become more accessible due to lower costs of printers and media. In this study, the average cost of the clavicle model was just $.84. The research team considered operation time, blood loss, length of incision, and intraoperative fluoroscopy use to measure success.  Findings showed little difference in the performance of experienced surgeons, but inexperienced surgeons performed better with 3D models with reduced incision length and intraoperative exposure.

“Since 3D printing models could provide a visual, comprehensive vision of fracture, the position of plate implantation, screw direction, and screw length can be determined in the simulation operation before operation…3D printing could supplement routine CT scans, allowing surgeons to understand patients' fractures more intuitively and achieve better surgical results.” 

(Zhang, 2022)

Though availability and cost of 3D printing technologies and the software that enables it are improving they can still present a barrier. Issues with the quality of the 3D objects produced can occur due to image resolution. Waiting for the 3D model to be rendered and printed can also cause delays in a procedure. A meta-analysis (Wang, 2021) that assessed 3D printing applications in open reduction and internal fixation of pelvic fractures found a delay of between 3 to 7 hours to print the object. The computer-aided design phase also required significant time and involvement from the surgeons.

Application of 3D printing in surgical instructional settings offers advantages over other models as they can be customized to simulate the exact procedure or anatomy required, and they provide the haptic experience so far lacking in VR simulation. VR simulation does include the challenge of learning how to use the equipment and navigate the interface. The University of Michigan has produced high fidelity 3D printed simulators for surgical instruction of airway reconstruction, cleft palates, cleft lips, ear reconstruction and facial flaps. Tissue components can have varying ranges of stiffness by combining types of silicones and additives. 

These training applications could be a solution should there be another round of restrictions on nonessential surgery procedures such as were seen during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. At that time, the number of cases available for the education of surgery residents decreased dramatically. High fidelity 3D simulation could help.

“With high fidelity surgical simulators that can be rapidly 3D printed and a virtual curriculum, these residents could learn valuable surgical skills in remote settings.”

(Michaels, 2021)

For an overview of 3D printing in surgery, see:

Meyer-Szary J, Luis MS, Mikulski S, Patel A, Schulz F, Tretiakow D, Fercho J, Jaguszewska K, Frankiewicz M, Pawłowska E, Targoński R, Szarpak Ł, Dądela K, Sabiniewicz R, Kwiatkowska J. The Role of 3D Printing in Planning Complex Medical Procedures and Training of Medical Professionals—Cross-Sectional Multispecialty Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(6):3331. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063331

Tsoulfas G, Bangeas PI, Suri JS. 3D Printing : Application in Medical Surgery. (Tsoulfas G, Bangeas PI, Suri JS, eds.). Elsevier; 2020.

References

Yammine K, Karbala J, Maalouf A, Daher J, Assi C. Clinical outcomes of the use of 3D printing models in fracture management: a meta-analysis of randomized studies. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022 Oct;48(5):3479-3491. doi: 10.1007/s00068-021-01758-1. Epub 2021 Aug 12. PMID: 34383092.

Zhang M, Guo J, Li H, Ye J, Chen J, Liu J, Xiao M. Comparing the effectiveness of 3D printing technology in the treatment of clavicular fracture between surgeons with different experiences. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022 Nov 22;23(1):1003. doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05972-9. PMID: 36419043; PMCID: PMC9682691.

Wang J, Wang X, Wang B, Xie L, Zheng W, Chen H, Cai L. Comparison of the feasibility of 3D printing technology in the treatment of pelvic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective comparative studies. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2021 Dec;47(6):1699-1712. doi: 10.1007/s00068-020-01532-9. Epub 2020 Nov 1. PMID: 33130976.

Michaels, R., Witsberger, C. A., Powell, A. R., Koka, K., Cohen, K., Nourmohammadi, Z. (2021). 3D printing in surgical simulation: emphasized importance in the COVID-19 pandemic era. Journal of 3D printing in medicine, 2021;5(1): 5-9. doi:10.2217/3dp-2021-0009

Published on
Picture of a mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine vial.
Photo by Spencer Davis on Unsplash

If you have watched the news during the past year, you’ve likely heard about mRNA vaccines. You may even have had a more personal connection to mRNA vaccines. If you received either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, you received an mRNA vaccine! Perhaps you heard that GW served as a clinical trial site for the Moderna mRNA vaccine, and may have volunteered for the clinical trial. 

How do these vaccines work? Traditional vaccines trigger immune responses in the body through injecting “a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies” (CDC, 2021). mRNA vaccines work differently. Messenger RNA, or mRNA, is a type of ribonucleic acid (RNA) that uses information in cells to create a blueprint for protein production within the body (NLM, NIH, HHS, 2021). mRNA vaccines introduce “a piece of mRNA that corresponds to a viral protein, usually a piece of a protein found on the virus’s outer membrane” (NLM, NIH, HHS, 2021). Your body uses this mRNA as a recipe, and cells start to make this viral protein. “As part of a normal immune response, the immune system recognizes that the protein is foreign and produces specialized proteins called antibodies” (NLM, NIH, HHS, 2021). These antibodies protect against infection “by recognizing individual viruses or pathogens, attaching to them, and marking the pathogens for destruction” (NLM, NIH, HHS, 2021). 

The surface of the COVID-19 virus (Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2) is covered in “spike proteins,” a glycoprotein that helps the virus enter a host cell by binding to a receptor on the surface of a host cell and fusing the viral and host cell membranes together. mRNA COVID-19 vaccines teach the body how to make this spike protein, (CDC, 2021). Once vaccinated, your body begins to recognize this spike protein as an intruder and begins to produce antibodies to fight off these spike proteins. Once you have these antibodies, they will be able to identify these spike proteins should you be exposed to the COVID-19 virus (Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2). If you do have a Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 exposure, these antibodies will quickly identify the spike proteins surrounding the virus, attach themselves to these spike proteins, and destroy the COVID-19 virus before it is able to cause serious illness (NLM, NIH, HHS, 2021).

The following video produced by the Mayo Clinic provides a straightforward overview of how mRNA vaccines work against COVID-19:

Many people believe that mRNA vaccines can alter their DNA. However, this is not possible through mRNA vaccines. Once the mRNA has delivered the instructions of how to make the protein to your cells, the mRNA is broken down fairly quickly and “it never enters the nucleus of your cells, where your DNA is kept” (Mayo Clinic Staff, 2021). Since the mRNA never interacts with your DNA, your DNA will not be altered in any way from an mRNA vaccine.

While mRNA vaccines may seem new, they have actually been researched for decades. The first report of a successful mRNA vaccine was reported in 1990 in animals (Pardi et al., 2018). mRNA vaccines have distinct benefits over traditional vaccines. Among these benefits are safety and production. Because the vaccine does not contain the virus itself, there is no risk for infection. Production of mRNA vaccines have the “potential for rapid inexpensive and scalable manufacturing”(Pardi et al., 2018), as has been demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. For a more in-depth scientific review of pre-COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, Pardi, Hogan, Porter, and Weissman’s review article titled mRNA Vaccines - A New Era in Vaccinology provides an excellent overview of mRNA vaccines. 

References:

Centers for Disease Control. (2021). Understanding mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mRNA.html?s_cid=11344:mrna%20vaccine%20technology:sem.ga:p:RG:GM:gen:PTN:FY21

Mayo Clinic Staff. (July 31, 2021). Different types of COVID-19 vaccines: How they work. Mayo Clinic. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/different-types-of-covid-19-vaccines/art-20506465

Mayo Clinic. (2021, February 8). Mayo Clinic Insights: How mRNA Vaccines Work . Mayo Clinic YouTube Channel. https://youtu.be/RvR_yf_haqQ

Pardi, N., Hogan, M. J., Porter, F. W., & Weissman, D. (2018). mRNA vaccines-a new era in vaccinology. Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery, 17(4), 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2017.243

U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health & Human Services. (2021). What are mRNA vaccines and how do they work? https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/mrnavaccines/

Published on

National Immunization Awareness Month runs through the month of August and serves as a time to highlight the importance of vaccines and tackle any misconceptions people may have about available vaccinations. In a time where conflicting and potentially harmful information is only a short Google search away, it’s necessary that people have access to reliable and accurate sources of information, particularly when it pertains to making a medical decision. It’s a promising sign that more and more people are signing up for their dose of the COVID-19 vaccination, but there is still a significant portion of the population who are hesitant to receive their vaccine. If you’re in need of resources or tips to address vaccine hesitancy and misconceptions, then the following list will offer some guidance on navigating these difficult conversations. 

Whether you’re having these conversations with a close friend, a family member or a patient, what’s most important is that you use empathy and understanding when addressing their concerns or fears. People’s concerns are legitimate and the conversation will be more productive if you avoid talking down to the person or ignore their feelings over the COVID-19 vaccine. Do your own research and gently, but firmly counter any myths or inaccuracies that may arise during the conversation. Begin from a place of empathy and understanding; ask open-ended questions to get a feel for the person’s hesitancy; do your own research and gently push back against any myths or inaccuracies.

Be sure to offer legitimate sources of information. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has an entire section of their website dedicated to COVID-19 that features new information on the virus, current safety guidelines and resources to help people find their closest vaccination site. If you want a simple breakdown of the COVID-19 vaccine and its safety, use the ‘Benefits of Getting a COVID-19 Vaccine’ guide to address basic concerns. Or check the ‘Myths and Facts about COVID-19 Vaccine’ to familiarize yourself with some of the common misconceptions about the purpose of the vaccine so you are prepared with facts that can help counter the myths during your discussion.

If you’re a healthcare provider and are searching for ways to talk about the vaccine with your patients, consider watching the CDC’s video series, ‘#HowIRecommend’ for tips and techniques you can use when making a vaccine recommendation to your patient. The short video series primarily focuses on vaccine recommendations aimed at children and their guardians, but the advice offered can be used no matter what area of medicine you currently work in. Watch Dr. Tolu Adebanjo’s video on how physicians can improve their vaccine recommendations:

Once you’ve addressed any vaccine concerns, there are still steps you can take to help them. Consider helping them locate a vaccination site or assist them in scheduling an appointment. Offer to drive them to their appointment or watch their kids or pets while they’re away. Continue to support them in any way that you’re able to.

Vaccines are safe and are necessary in slowing the spread of infectious diseases, such as COVID-19. We must all do our part to keep ourselves, our friends and family and our larger communities safe. Vaccine misconceptions spread easily on the internet and it’s important to educate ourselves and those around us who may experience vaccine hesitancy or anxiety. This post should provide plenty of tools to help you navigate these conversations so you can successfully dispel the myths many people have about our current vaccines. For more information or resources to help you fight the current vaccine misinformation, be sure to visit the CDC’s website or visit your local health department’s website for resources!

Published on

After over a year of social distancing and virtual learning, we’re excited to see students, faculty and staff return to GWU's campus for in-person instruction! The university is committed to maintaining a safe environment for everyone and has released updated guidelines and requirements for in person instruction during the fall semester. As part of these new guidelines, the university has implemented a COVID-19 vaccination policy:

All students, faculty and staff members who wish to access any building on GW’s campus must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. 

Once you’ve received your full dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, you must update the university by uploading your vaccination card onto the medical portal. A link to the medical portal is located here. 

To upload your vaccination record to the portal, follow these short instructions:

  • Log onto the portal, enter your date of birth and you’ll be directed to the home page
  • On the left side menu, click ‘Medical Clearances’
  • Once you’ve reached the ‘Medical Clearances’ page, scroll until you see ‘Add COVID Vaccine Record’
  • Press ‘Update’ and upload a copy of your vaccination record
    • Note: Please upload the file as a JPEG. PDFs will not be accepted
  • Once you’re ready to upload, click the ‘Done’ button and your record is now in the portal!

The vaccination record must be uploaded by August 1st in order to receive clearance to access any GW buildings. 

If you have any questions about the vaccination requirement or the university’s strategies for maintaining a safe and clean environment in the summer and fall, visit GWU’s Coronavirus Response webpage or the Vaccine page. If you’re unsure of where to go to receive your vaccine, check with your state’s health department or use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Vaccine Finder. 

We look forward to seeing you in person in a few short weeks!

Published on

New Publication from GW Researchers Highlights Link Between Aspirin use and Decreased COVID-19 Severity in Hospitalized Patients

A recent clinical research report led by Jonathan H. Chow, Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine at the George Washington University, found that the use of aspirin may be associated with improved outcomes for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The study entitled Aspirin Use Is Associated With Decreased Mechanical Ventilation, Intensive Care Unit Admission, and In-Hospital Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 was published in the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia tracked 412 adult patients with COVID-19 and suggests that aspirin may provide lung-protective effects that help reduce the need for mechanical ventilation and ICU admissions. The article was featured in a recent news release from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. A randomized control trial is now needed to assess whether there is a causal relationship between aspirin use and a reduction in lung injury among COVID-19 patents. 

Interested in learning more about COVID-19 related research at GW? Check out our COVID-19 Publications by GW Authors collection in our institutional repository Health Sciences Research Commons.

Published on

In an effort to remain accountable to communities who have been negatively impacted by past and present medical injustices, the staff at Himmelfarb Library is committed to the work of maintaining an anti-discriminatory practice. We will uplift and highlight diverse stories throughout the year, and not shy away from difficult conversations necessary for health sciences education. To help fulfill this mission, this week’s blog post will cover Dr. Marcella Nunez-Smith.

Marcella Nunez-Smith, MD, MHS was recently appointed to chair the U.S. COVID-19 Health Equity Task Force.  Dr. Nunez had been previously appointed as co-chair of the Biden-Harris transition team’s COVID-19 Advisory Board.   The executive order appointing Dr. Nunez-Smith to the COVID-19 Health Equity Task Force identifies the issue that while people of color in the United States are more likely to become sick and die of COVID-19, but incomplete data on underlying health conditions, social factors, and rates of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality have hampered an equitable response.  

Dr. Nunez-Smith grew up in the U.S. Virgin Islands and pursued her education at Swarthmore College, Jefferson Medical College, and Yale University.  Her understanding of the effects of limited access to health care date to her childhood when her father had a stroke in his 40s as a result of untreated hypertension.  The stroke left her father partially paralyzed and Dr. Nunez Smith described the experience in a New York Times profile: 

"He was a champion and a fighter. But my memories are of a father who had to live life with this daily reminder of how we had failed in terms of our health care. I don’t want another little girl out there to have her father suffer a stroke that is debilitating and life-altering in that way."

Dr. Nunez-Smith is responsible for an extensive bibliography of research on health promotion and health equity as well as research methods including primary data collection, data management and analysis, qualitative and mixed methods research, and population health.   While Dr. Nunez-Smith will remain in her position as Associate Dean for Health Equity Research at Yale University and a board-certified internal medicine physician, it's her work on the COVID-19 Health Equity Task Force that is getting much attention.

Dr. Nunez Smith has identified some primary goals of the task force including addressing vaccination as well as equitable access to other healthcare services including testing, contact tracing, and treatment.  In a Fortune magazine profile, Dr. Nunez-Smith discussed COVID-19 vaccination in communities of color which are historically underserved: 

"It's important for us to acknowledge why there’s this hesitancy. People are going to be skeptical of vaccines, particularly many in communities where there is a not-long-ago history of experimentation, and where there are daily, contemporary reminders of differential status and access. But not every person or group that's skeptical of vaccines has their skepticism rooted in the same things, not even for every person of color who's skeptical. So we need to be thinking about targeted messaging; different people have different questions and motivations, and our response is not one-size-fits-all in terms of the information people need."

Published on

Over the past year, the COVID-19 pandemic has altered so much in the world around us.  As described in a recent article in Nature, scholarly publishing has not been immune from COVID-19 related change.  This article highlights a number of the most striking changes that have occurred in recent months, showing how the pandemic has, perhaps permanently, altered the landscape of scholarly publishing.

The amount of published research on the topic of COVID-19 has been enormous.  It’s estimated that from the start of the pandemic to December 2020, there have been over 200,000 articles published on COVID-19, accounting for around 6% of the total publications entered into PubMed during that time.  The paper goes on to show the evolution of several trends within that literature including country of origin and topics covered.  While the majority of COVID-19 related articles were published in China during the early phase of the pandemic, as the virus spread around the world, the countries publishing COVID-19 research also changed, with each new area hit by the virus producing a larger share of the total COVID-19 articles than they had before.  Additionally, while a majority of the earliest articles focused on topics like modeling the epidemic and slowing the spread, topics such as mental health considerations of the pandemic have grown in prominence in recent months.

One of the most notable trends in scholarly publishing to occur in the time of COVID-19 is the rise of the preprint.  Preprints are articles that are made publicly available before having undergone a formal process of peer review.  Because of the need to get information in the hands of researchers and clinicians as soon as possible, a significant portion of the COVID-19 literature was released in preprint form.  Pre-pandemic, medRxiv, a popular preprint repository covering medical literature, accepted 50-100 preprints per week.  During the early months of the pandemic that number rose to 400-500 preprints being added per week, with the vast majority of them being about COVID-19. 

                Another important recent trend in the world of scholarly publishing has been the increased speed with which manuscripts are being reviewed and articles retracted.   The article’s author looked at the peer review turnaround time for 11 medical journals and found that while the review time for non COVID-19 articles remains about the same (roughly 90-110 days), the review time for COVID-19 articles was significantly lower on average (10-30 days).  Additionally there has been a noticeable increase in the speed with which papers have been retracted.  Prior to COVID-19, the average retracted paper would go years from the time of its publication until it was pulled.  During the pandemic that has dropped to months in most cases as COVID-19 related articles have garnered more attention and therefore more scrutiny.

                It will be interesting to see which, if any, of these trends will prove permanent once we’ve moved beyond the current pandemic.

Else, H. (2020) How a torrent of COVID science changed research publishing — in seven charts. Nature. 558 (553).  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03564-y

Published on
Graffiti on wall: Unsmiling face next to text "What now?"
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

The pandemic has necessitated significant shifts within the scholarly publishing environment. COVID-19 research has reached readers at record speeds, and for many major publishers, been made available at no cost to readers. Preprints are now mainstream and are indexed in PubMed, as well as on preprint servers such as medRxiv and bioRxiv. But are these changes here to stay? And what other changes has COVID-19 brought about within the scholarly publishing world? 

Perhaps the most obvious change in publishing during the past 6 months is the “extraordinary proliferation of research and commentary on the pandemic” (Bell & Green, 2020, p. 379). The scholarly publishing community has placed an increased value on open science. A majority of large publishers have made their COVID-19 content freely accessible. In a recent post on The Scholarly Kitchen, “both the positive (rapid reporting and sharing of information) and the negatives (the glut of bad science being issued as preprints and promoted via mainstream media without proper curation) are now evident, with the good generally outweighing the bad” (Crotty, 2020). 

The need for increased speed of publication has many critics afraid that pushing papers through the peer review process quickly will result in increased retractions. In fact, as of October 15, 2020, RetractionWatch lists 36 retracted COVID-19 papers, including articles from prestigious journals such as  The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine. Alongside this “crisis in peer review” is a “less widely publicised crisis in peer reviewers, with willing and able peer reviewers increasingly difficult to find” (Bell & Green, 2020, p. 380). While the number of submissions is ever increasing, “academics are baulking at being asked to review them” (Bell & Green, 2020, 380). Additionally, article submissions from women authors have decreased presumably due to the fact that “the effects of lockdown have disproportionately disadvantaged women across the disciplines” (Smart, 2020, p. 196). This has also likely contributed to the shortage of peer reviewers. 

And let’s not forget the financial impact of COVID-19. Researchers are competing for limited grant funding. Many large publishers are freezing subscription prices. Library collection budgets are being cut, forcing libraries to cancel subscriptions to valued resources, which will further impact publishers' and researchers. Research societies that rely on annual meetings for large portions of their income don’t expect to hold large meetings until late in 2021 at the earliest, and expect to see a decline in membership as discretionary income of individual members becomes scarce (Crotty, 2020).  

It’s not all doom and gloom though. On the bright side, “recognition of the need to fund scientific research has never been stronger (Crotty, 2020). Governments and funding agencies now see the value of open science, which “creates the potential for continuing progress through the creation of incentives and eventually, after normality resumes, the dedication of increased funding to both support existing OA models and to drive the creation of new models” (Crotty , 2020). While the landscape of scholarly publishing is constantly evolving, COVID-19 has undoubtedly already had a dramatic influence on this evolution. 

References:

Bell, K., & Green, J. (2020). Premature evaluation? Some cautionary thoughts on global pandemics and scholarly publishing. Critical Public Health, 30:4, 379-383, DOI: 10.1080/09581596.2020.1769406

Crotty, D. (2020, August 4). Two steps forward, one step back: The pandemic’s impact on Open Access progress. The Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/08/04/two-steps-forward-one-step-back-the-pandemics-impact-on-open-access-progress/

RetractionWatch, (2020). Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers. RetractionWatch [Weblog, accessed October 15, 2020], https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/

Smart P. (2020). Publishing during pandemic: Innovation, collaboration, and change. Learned publishing: journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, 33(3), 194–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1314

Published on

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, research papers have been fast-tracked to publication. The pandemic has necessitated significant shifts in the scholarly publishing model that have resulted in research being made available at record speeds and, for most major publishers, available at no cost. Preprints have become mainstream. While many see these as positive changes, there is a darker side to this shift in scholarly publishing.

Predatory journals, known for their lack of peer review and willingness to publish any article written by someone able to pay the required Article Processing Charges (APCs), have been largely forgotten during the COVID-19 pandemic. Predatory journals are known for their promises of “rapid” publication. But in the time of COVID-19, quick publication has become the norm even among legitimate and highly respected journals. This has led to questions about the quality of peer review and has led to frequent retractions of COVID-19 related articles. 

In a recent article published in The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Teixeria da Silva (2020) states that “the risks to the scholarly community, academic publishing and ultimately public health are at stake when exploitative and predatory publishing are left unchallenged.” Academics and the media alike are reading, discussing and trusting content that has not undergone a rigorous peer review process. “If one considers that this explosion in literature is directly affecting human lives and public health, astute academics need to be able to sift through pro-preprint propaganda, as well as poorly conducted peer review and editorial processing in peer reviewed journals, in order to be able to distinguish valid from invalid research” (Teixeria da Silva, 2020). 

A recent study of predatory publishing in the COVID-19 era analyzed the prevalence of COVID-19-related articles published in known predatory journals. Between January and May 2020, the study found 350 articles were published in 109 predatory journals, and five of these journals were indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE (Vervoort & Shrime, 2020). The study estimated that the amount of money spent to cover APCs for these articles totaled $33,807.41 (Vervoort & Shrime, 2020). 

Vervoort and Shrime (2020) highlighted three major concerns about predatory journals in light of the pandemic:

  1. "Loss of potential valuable biomedical and epidemiological information."
  2. "Spread of misinformation with potentially harmful or negligent consequences."
  3. "Money earned off of unknowing authors in times where many scientists and clinicians have taken pay cuts."

Retraction Watch highlighted a sting article entitled “SARS-CoV-2 was Unexpectedly Deadlier than Push-scooters: Could Hydroxychloroquine be the Unique Solution?” by authors claiming to be from “The Institute for Quick and Dirty Science” in Switzerland. The goal of this sting article was “to highlight a concerning paper in the Asian Journal of Medicine and Health, which they and others suspect of being a predatory publication” (Marcus, 2020). The “concerning paper” included among its authors several hydroxychloroquine partisans, and contains “errors of analysis, raises regulatory questions and sometimes misunderstand the appropriate terms” (Marcus, 2020). 

The authors of the paper in question had claimed that their article was “proof of the efficacy of HCQ,” and that the journal in which it was published was “as serious as the Lancet” (Marcus, 2020). In an effort to prove that this same journal would indeed publish anything as long as the APC has been paid, the sting article authors set out to write and publish a bogus article in this journal. The article was indeed published! Although it has since been retracted due to “serious scientific fraud,” it would not have been published at all had any real peer review taken place prior to publication.

While there is a real need for legitimate research to be published quickly in order to increase our knowledge about COVID-19, authors and readers alike should remember that predatory journals have not taken time off during the pandemic. “The academic community has the duty to respond to these deeply perverse practices, and thereby protect fellow researchers and combat misinformation” (Vervoort & Shrime, 2020). 

 

References:

Marcus, A. (2020). Hydroxychloroquine, push-scooters, and COVID-19: A journal gets stung and swiftly reacts. Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/2020/08/16/hydroxychloroquine-push-scooters-and-covid-19-a-journal-gets-stung-and-swiftly-retracts/

Teixeira da Silva. (2020). An alert to COVID-19 literature in predatory publishing venues. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. (46)5.

Vervoort, D., Ma, X., & Shrime, M. (2020). Money down the drain: predatory publishing in the COVID-19 era. Canadian Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-020-00411-5

Published on

AAMC: Journals for COVID-19 ResearchDo you have important COVID-19 related research, but are unsure of where to publish? The Medical Education Research Scholarship and Evaluation (MESRE) Section of AAMC’s Group of Education Affairs has put together an annotated bibliography of journals targeting COVID-19 related research to help!

Many of the nearly 50 journals listed in the bibliography either have special calls for articles or are accepting COVID-19 related pieces. This bibliography provides information about special issues, submission guidelines, and more.   The goal of the MESRE is to "enhance the quality of research in medical education and to promote its application to educational practice." and additional information is available on the MESRE website.  

Viewing Message: 1 of 1.
 Notice

This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. Visit GW’s Website Privacy Notice to learn more about how GW uses cookies.