arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2006.05366

Comparison of Citations Trends between the COVID-19 Pandemic and SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, Ebola, Zika, Avian and Swine Influenza Epidemics

Artemis Chaleplioglou·Daphne Kyriaki-Manessi
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Objective: The novel coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak rapidly evolved into pandemic. Global research efforts focus on this topic and with the collaboration of the scientific journals publication industry produced more than 16,000 related published articles in PubMed within five months from the onset of the outbreak. Herein, a comparison of the COVID-19 citations in PubMed and Web of Science was performed with SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, Ebola, Zika, avian and swine influenza epidemics. Methods: The citations were searched and collected using the disease terms and the date of publication restriction. The total number of PubMed citations and the HIV associated papers during the same chronological periods were examined in parallel. The journal category and country information of the publications were gathered from Web of Science. The collected data were statistically analyzed and compared. Results: Significant correlations were found between COVID-19 and MERS (CC=0.988; p=0.003; q=0.006), Ebola (CC=0.987; p=0.003; q=0.011), and SARS (CC=0.964; p=0.015; q=0.028) epidemics five-month pick of novel citations in PubMed. However, COVID-19 publications were accumulated earlier and in larger numbers than any other 21st century major communicable disease outbreak. Conclusion: The acceleration and the total number of COVID-19 publications represent an unprecedented landmark event in the medical library history. The immediate adoption of the fast-track peer-reviewing and publishing as well as the open access publication policies by the journal publishers are significant contributors to this bibliographic phenomenon.

Explore related subjects

cs.DLphysics.soc-ph

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Artemis Chaleplioglou, Daphne Kyriaki-Manessi. 2020-06-09. Comparison of Citations Trends between the COVID-19 Pandemic and SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, Ebola, Zika, Avian and Swine Influenza Epidemics. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.05366

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

INDRA: A New AI Tool for Exploring Tobacco, Fossil Fuel, and Chemical Industry Archives

Five decades of litigation have disgorged hundreds of millions of pages of formerly secret business records from the tobacco industry, along with documents from the makers of drugs, chemicals, food, firearms, and fossil fuels. Yet these archives have been effectively inaccessible to general-purpose large language models (LLMs) because they have never been compiled into an LLM-readable corpus. Chatbots may be familiar with some of the materials contained in such archives but, with no direct access to the documents, they are vulnerable to hallucination and other defects. Here we introduce INDRA, a research platform designed to remedy such failures by embedding the conventions of archival historiography into a system-level protocol governing every output. The platform federates UCSF's Industry Documents Library, Columbia and CUNY's ToxicDocs, Stanford's SRITA, and other heretofore siloed collections, and provides three interlinked safeguards: (1) a closed evidentiary sandbox confines the model to a user-selected corpus, blocking retrieval from external sources that could introduce bias; (2) real-time provenance tagging marks the boundary between archival evidence and parametric inference; and (3) a system-level protocol enforced by deterministic scripts guides the structure of every output. Together these safeguards prevent the model from conflating "the documents say X" with "I think X" or "I learned X from prior training." The result is an LLM-powered research partner enabling massive multi-archival investigations, a tool whose outputs are designed to be checked rather than trusted, and whose architecture makes the conditions of knowledge production visible and auditable. Three case studies demonstrate the method's analytical value and limitations, including what we call the Heraclitus effect, the steppingstone dilemma, and the gullibility (or mafia) problem.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Wavering Oracles: Selective Updating and Correlated Failures in LLMs and Their Implications for Scientific Workflows

Scientific workflows increasingly use repeated queries, multiple models, and interacting agents. Reliability therefore depends on whether models preserve correct conclusions, accept valid corrections, and contribute errors that a selector can distinguish. Using SycoBench- 600 as a controlled measurement substrate, we evaluate these requirements through selective updating, defined by resistance to misleading suggestions and uptake of correct suggestions. The study covers ten models and 17,055 trajectories. Published models span 13.4 to 71.6 percentage points in selectivity. Under identical local evaluation, Qwen3-4B is selectively adaptive at 45.6 points, Gemma3-4B is destabilized at minus 14.1 points, and SmolLM3-3B follows both correct and wrong explicit suggestions, producing zero selectivity. Matched interventions identify model specific responses to doubt, authority, and explicit advice. Among seven published models, the best reaches 95.3 percent accuracy, plurality reaches 88.6 percent, and the oracle ceiling is 99.8 percent. Mean error correlation of 0.285 reduces seven models to an effective independent count of 2.58. A leave-one-stem-family-out reliability selector reaches 96.2 percent, recovering 67.7 percent of the plurality-to-oracle gap. These results establish selective updating, error diversity, and calibrated adjudication as jointly measurable design targets for multi-model scientific workflows.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Same Problem, Different Field: Cross-Domain Solution Import via Domain-Stripped Computational Fingerprints

The same underlying computational problem is solved across unrelated fields under different names: recursive Bayesian state estimation appears as a "Kalman filter" in control, "Bayesian forecasting" in pharmacokinetics, and "data assimilation" in geoscience. Topical and citation-based scientific embeddings cannot see this shared problem. We distill each paper once into a domain- and method-name-stripped faceted computational fingerprint, a free-text mechanism skeleton plus controlled computational facets. We define a tunable, facet-selectable distance over it. The goal is solution import: surface cross-field pairs solving the same problem, so a bespoke implementation can be swapped for another field's standard, specialized solver. On a benchmark of 18 method families across 109 papers, the skeleton lifts cross-domain retrieval average precision over the abstract from 0.222 to 0.513, and the whole fingerprint reaches 0.557. Strikingly, four trained scientific embedders all fall below plain abstract+TF-IDF: they encode topical and citation similarity, the wrong signal for this task. The gain is the representation: the abstract-to-skeleton swap lifts every embedder, and the pipeline is one cached LLM call per paper plus a cheap embedder. An interventional re-skin / math-edit test shows the fingerprint tracks the computation, not the field. On a 501-paper wild corpus, known twins dominate the top of the ranking (23 of the top 30); with planted pairs excluded from the results, three blind LLM judges rate 3 of the top 5 and 8 of the top 30 pairs genuine import candidates, and 0 of 30 random ones. The human verification is the four executed imports: in one, an open standard solver reproduces a bespoke clinical dosing engine's output. We release the benchmark, the code, and the distillation prompt.

cs.DL↗