PNAS and the pandemic May R. Berenbaum

PNAS and the pandemic

May R. Berenbaum; PNAS May 5, 2020 117 (18) 9650-9651

Figure: May R. Berenbaum

On January 15, 1915, the first issue of PNAS, the official “organ of publication” of the National Academy of Sciences, appeared in print. It was, in some ways, a less than propitious time to launch a journal—just a little more than seven months after the start of what ultimately became World War I. The hostilities that began in Europe led to disruptions in the scientific enterprise around the world, including science publishing—submissions to journals declined, subscriptions were canceled, and, in some cases, undisguised anti-German sentiments were expressed in editorials (e.g., https://www.nature.com/nature/about/history-of-nature). The challenges for the scientific enterprise multiplied as PNAS began its fourth year of existence, when H1N1 influenza (known then just as “influenza” or the “Spanish flu”) began its 3-year assault. PNAS didn’t publish its first paper on Spanish flu—by Underhill and Ringer (1)—until December 1920, the last month of the pandemic. Titled “Blood concentration changes in influenza,” its message was that respiratory complications associated with influenza resembled those resulting from exposure to “lethal war gases,” including chlorine and phosgene.

A century later, the world’s science enterprise is again challenged by a global pandemic. Detected in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was declared a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” by the World Health Organization (WHO) in January 2020; by mid-March, WHO reclassified the COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic. In response, most universities shut down, national laboratories closed, and life science laboratory supply chains struggled to keep up with the ballooning demand for viral RNA/DNA kits and protective gear. Many scientists have been faced with difficult research decisions, often ending up pausing or discontinuing long-term projects, field-based studies, or international collaborations. At the same time, some have also experienced unbearably sad personal losses, of colleagues, friends, or family members who succumbed to the virus. Scientists continue to work, however, reengineering research in order to adapt to the new constraints imposed by the pandemic. Virologists, epidemiologists, and medical scientists have continued their investigations with new urgency; many others, across the spectrum of biological, social, and physical sciences, have redirected their efforts toward understanding COVID-19 in all of its dimensions with the goal of developing ways to limit its spread or ameliorate its terrible virulence.

Science publishing hasn’t stopped, either, but it is undergoing a transformation, at least for the short term. PNAS has instituted a series of changes aimed at ensuring rapid communication of critically important scientific findings relating to the pandemic:

1) PNAS, along with now more than 120 other scientific publishers, implemented the policy of making all coronavirus and COVID-19 research and data freely available. PNAS is publishing relevant COVID papers with a CC BY license to permit commercial reuse, and is waiving CC BY fees for these articles.

2) We are also working to expedite COVID manuscripts through peer review and production, particularly those studies with implications for reducing the spread of the disease or developing novel life-saving treatments. All internal correspondence relating to COVID-19 manuscripts is flagged with “COVID-19” in the subject line, to ensure that, at all levels of processing, the need for priority is evident. Reviewers are asked to submit their reviews within 10 days, but, on request, we can arrange for additional time if the pandemic has created conditions inimical to rapid review. To date, turnaround times for these COVID manuscripts undergoing review have ranged from 4 days to 15 days from submission to first decision, averaging 8.5 days (median 7.5 days).

3) We are also communicating with reviewers and editors to ensure that rapid review does not, in any way, compromise rigor and reliability of review. Publishing research findings prematurely under the current circumstances risks creating false hopes, diverting attention away from more solid science, and possibly even adding to the disease’s appalling death toll. At the same time, reviewers and editors are reminded that, due to lockdowns and other disruptions, authors very likely will be unable to comply with any reviewer requests for additional experiments prior to acceptance, so such requests should not be a condition for acceptance. As well, after review, authors of invited revisions are informed that extensions on the 60-day time period for responding to reviewer comments are available, on request, if circumstances require them.

4) To amplify original research papers, we are also expanding and expediting COVID-19 coverage in our Front Matter section, with opinion pieces and news content related to vaccine development, coronavirus testing, and drug development. For example, a news feature, published March 30, on the potential pitfalls related to COVID-19 vaccine development has been widely read (2); another expedited piece, posted April 2 in our Journal Club blog, focuses on the various ways in which molecular biologists can contribute their time, equipment, and skills to testing efforts (3).

It’s important to emphasize that, while biological and medical sciences are on the front lines of beating back COVID-19, success will depend on advances in almost every academic field. There are even lessons to be gleaned from history. In a paper published in PNAS 13 years ago, Hatchett et al. (5) examined historical data to compare the impacts of 19 classes of interventions implemented in 17 US cities during the 1918–1920 influenza epidemic. One figure in particular, contrasting the outcomes of early and late implementation of what is today called social distancing, in St. Louis and Philadelphia, respectively, was described by the authors as “particularly striking,” with aggressive early interventions in St. Louis associated with a dramatically lower peak of excess mortality. This figure recently reappeared on social media, tweeted by more than 10,000 people in March. It’s a reminder that the public has a stake in the science publishing enterprise, a powerful motivation for continuing our efforts to share critical new knowledge rapidly and efficiently, despite the new challenges that the scientific community is facing today.

See https://www.pnas.org/content/117/18/9650