The pandemic veneer: COVID-19 research as a mobilisation of collective intelligence by the global research community

Abstract

The global research community responded with speed and at scale to the emergence of COVID-19, with around 4.6% of all research outputs in 2020 related to the pandemic. That share almost doubled through 2021, to reach 8.6% of research outputs. This reflects a dramatic mobilisation of global collective intelligence in the face of a crisis. It also raises fundamental questions about the funding, organisation and operation of research. In this Perspective article, we present data that suggests that COVID-19 research reflects the characteristics of the underlying networks from which it emerged, and on which it built. The infrastructures on which COVID-19 research has relied - including highly skilled, flexible research capacity and collaborative networks - predated the pandemic, and are the product of sustained, long-term investment. As such, we argue that COVID-19 research should not be viewed as a distinct field, or one-off response to a specific crisis, but as a 'pandemic veneer' layered on top of longstanding interdisciplinary networks, capabilities and structures. These infrastructures of collective intelligence need to be better understood, valued and sustained as crucial elements of future pandemic or crisis response.

Keywords: COVID-19; collective intelligence; meta-research; pandemic response; research funding; research on research; research policy; scientific collaboration.

Figure 1

Evolution of influence of each country over COVID publications by month. The upper plot shows eigenvector centrality in the co-authorship graph of COVID publications as a measure of influence. Each country is denoted in a colour shown in the key; eigenvector centrality ranges from 0 to 1; in this plot, the most influential country is the US, with a peak value in month three of 0.55. The lower plot shows volume of COVID publications by month. Data: Digital Science Dimensions.

Figure 2

Month-by-mouth development of COVID versus global % of bilateral and multilateral collaboration on publications at a country level. The vertical axis is percentage of output, the horizontal axis is months since Jan 2020. In both cases, the dotted or dashed lines denote the collaboration trend for all papers in all subjects including COVID papers; the solid lines denote the collaboration trends just for COVID papers alone. The number of COVID publications is small in months 1–3 (see Figure 1) and hence the trends are more volatile and less reliable. Data: Digital Science Dimensions.

Figure 3

Month-by-mouth development of COVID versus global % of bilateral and multilateral collaboration on publications at an institutional level. The vertical axis is percentage of output, the horizontal axis is months since Jan 2020. In both cases, the dotted or dashed lines denote the collaboration trend for all papers in all subject areas including COVID papers; the solid lines denote the collaboration trends just for COVID papers alone. The number of COVID publications is small in months 1-3 (see Figure 1) and hence the trends are more volatile and less reliable. We note that there appears to be a seasonal effect in December each year. Data: Digital Science Dimensions.

Figure 4

Conference Proceedings publications between 2012 and 2021. During the COVID era, conference proceedings have dropped to around 86% of their pre-COVID levels. Data: Digital Science Dimensions.