Information and Misinformation on COVID-19 a Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Information and Misinformation on COVID-19 a Cross-Sectional Survey Study
复制标题
DOI：
10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e256
复制
发表时间：
2020-07-13
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Yessirkepov, Marten
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gupta, Latika;Gasparyan, Armen Yuri;Yessirkepov, Marten
背景资料：2019冠状病毒病2019冠状病毒病（COVID-19）大流行导致大量出版物、各种专业知识库中大量未经审查的预印本以及短时间内大量撤稿。方法：我们使用基于云的网站进行了一项电子调查，以评估可信信息和错误信息的潜在来源，并分析了研究人员，临床医生，结果：在128名被调查者中（平均年龄43.2岁，男：女为1.1：1），有60人（46.9%）是学术期刊的编辑和编委。社交媒体渠道被认为是最重要的信息来源以及错误信息（81 [63.3%]和86 [67.2%]）。近五分之二（62，48.4%）的受访者指责审稿人，编辑和读者的误解，因为除了作者之外，还有其他贡献者提供错误信息。大多数人（70，58.6%）认为剽窃的风险更高，尤其是剽窃思想（64.1%），其次是不恰当的释义（54.7%）。对于预印本在大流行期间改变实践和改变撤回率的效用，意见不一，大多数人（76.6%）不支持较高的拒绝率，而大多数人（80，62.5%）同意同行评审的重要性。建议的解决方案包括期刊编辑进行更严格的筛选（61.7%），促进开放获取剽窃软件（59.4%），包括基于人工智能（AI）的算法（43.8%）。最（74.2%）支持建立COVID-19专业书目数据库，并将信息编入索引（62.3%），以开放获取方式提供（82.8%），扩大搜索词后（52.3%），并经学者适当核实后，（66.4%）和期刊编辑（52.3%）。虽然社交媒体被认为是COVID-19错误信息的潜在来源，而且被认为存在很高的剽窃风险，更严格的同行审查和熟练的出版后宣传是可取的。期刊编辑应在精简出版和推广有关COVID-19的可靠信息方面发挥更积极的作用。
Background: 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.Methods: 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of trustworthy information and misinformation and analyzed researchers', clinicians', and academics' attitude toward unpublished items, and pre- and post-publication quality checks in this challenging time.Results: Among 128 respondents (mean age, 43.2 years; M:F, 1.1:1), 60 (46.9%) were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%).Conclusion: 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.