J Korean Med Sci.  2020 Jul;35(27):e256. 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e256.

Information and Misinformation on COVID-19: a Cross-Sectional Survey Study

• Gupta L
• Gasparyan AY
• Misra DP
• Agarwal V
• Zimba O
• Yessirkepov M

• KMID: 2504267
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e256

Abstract

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of trustworthy information and misinformation and analyzed researchers', clinicians', and academics' attitude toward unpublished items, and pre- and post-publication quality checks in this challenging time.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.

Keyword

Coronavirus Disease 2019; COVID-19; Information; Publishing; Social Media; Periodicals as Topic

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Perception of sources of misinformation, plagiarism, and reliability of preprints by physicians and academics.COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019.

Reference

1. Gasparyan AY, Misra DP, Yessirkepov M, Zimba O. Perspectives of immune therapy in coronavirus disease 2019. J Korean Med Sci. 2020; 35(18):e176. PMID: 32383371.

2. Fleming N. Coronavirus misinformation, and how scientists can help to fight it. Updated June 24, 2020. Accessed June 25, 2020. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01834-3.

3. Gupta L, Misra DP, Agarwal V, Balan S, Agarwal V. Management of rheumatic diseases in the time of COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives of rheumatology practitioners from India. Ann Rheum Dis. Forthcoming. 2020; DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217509.

4. Llewellyn S. Covid-19: how to be careful with trust and expertise on social media. BMJ. 2020; 368:m1160. PMID: 32213480.

5. Goel A, Gupta L. Social media in the times of COVID-19. J Clin Rheumatol. Forthcoming. 2020; DOI: 10.1097/RHU.0000000000001508.

6. Ledford H, Van Noorden R. High-profile coronavirus retractions raise concerns about data oversight. Nature. 2020; 582(7811):160–160. PMID: 32504025.

7. Bauchner H, Golub RM, Zylke J. Editorial concern—Possible reporting of the same patients with COVID-19 in different reports. JAMA. 2020; 323(13):1256.

8. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet e-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004; 6(3):e34. PMID: 15471760.

9. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Koroleva AM, Kitas GD. Comprehensive approach to open access publishing: platforms and tools. J Korean Med Sci. 2019; 34(27):e184. PMID: 31293109.

10. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Gerasimov AN, Kostyukova EI, Kitas GD. Preserving the integrity of citations and references by all stakeholders of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30(11):1545–1552. PMID: 26538996.

11. Kwon D. How swamped preprint servers are blocking bad coronavirus research. Nature. 2020; 581(7807):130–131. PMID: 32382120.

12. Callaway E. Will the pandemic permanently alter scientific publishing? Nature. 2020; 582(7811):167–168. PMID: 32504015.

13. Glasziou PP, Sanders S, Hoffmann T. Waste in covid-19 research. BMJ. 2020; 369:m1847. PMID: 32398241.

14. Misra D, Agarwal V. To act…….or to wait for the evidence: ethics in the time of covid-19! Indian J Rheumatol. 2020; 15(1):3–4.

15. World Health Organization. Countering misinformation about COVID-19. Updated May 13, 2020. Accessed June 25, 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/countering-misinformation-about-covid-19.

16. Pazzanese C. Battling the ‘pandemic of misinformation.’. Updated May 8, 2020. Accessed June 25, 2020. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/05/social-media-used-to-spread-create-covid-19-falsehoods/.

17. Retraction Watch. Lancet, NEJM retract controversial COVID-19 studies based on Surgisphere data. Updated June 4, 2020. Accessed June 25, 2020. https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/04/lancet-retracts-controversial-hydroxychloroquine-study/.

18. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Akazhanov NA, Kitas GD. Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact. Croat Med J. 2014; 55(1):61–72. PMID: 24577829.

19. Gasparyan AY, Gerasimov AN, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30(4):360–364. PMID: 25829801.

20. Gewin V. Retractions: a clean slate. Nature. 2014; 507(7492):389–391. PMID: 24654274.

21. Heaven D. AI peer reviewers unleashed to ease publishing grind. Nature. 2018; 563(7733):609–610. PMID: 30482927.

22. Gang L, Quan Z, Guang L. Cross-language plagiarism detection based on WordNet. In : Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Innovation in Artificial Intelligence - ICIAI ’18; Shanghai, China: ACM Press;2018. p. 163–168.

23. Zimba O, Radchenko O, Strilchuk L. Social media for research, education and practice in rheumatology. Rheumatol Int. 2020; 40(2):183–190. PMID: 31863133.

24. Ahmed S, Gupta L. Perception about social media use by rheumatology journals: survey among the attendees of IRACON 2019. Indian J Rheumatol. Forthcoming. 2020; DOI: 10.4103/injr.injr_15_20.

25. WhatsApp. How WhatsApp can help you stay connected during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Updated 2020. Accessed June 25, 2020. https://www.whatsapp.com/coronavirus/.