The scientific response to the COVID-19 pandemic has elicited commentaries on the quickening of biomedical research,1–3 contrasting with literature on prolonged time to publication for clinical research projects.4–6 We investigated research project duration for three clinical departments (emergency medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics) with centralized research leadership in a community-based US medical school. Following institutional review board (IRB) approval, we identified original research reports published or accepted in academic year 2019–2020, originating at our institution, and involving faculty from these departments. Of 39 eligible publications, we reconstructed study timelines (table 1) for 17 publications based on departmental records, and 10 publications based on a survey of corresponding authors.
Table 1.
Project stage | Number of projects with available data | |||
Prospective research | Retrospective research | Basic science research | Other project type | |
Conception First written outline or synopsis of project rationale and aims |
5 | 18 | 1 | 2 |
Funding First funding received in direct support of the project |
2 | 5 | 1 | 0 |
Regulatory submission First submission to IRB/IACUC |
5 | 8 | 1 | 0 |
Regulatory approval Receipt of all approvals needed to conduct the project |
4 | 9 | 1 | 0 |
Start of data collection | 5 | 18 | 1 | 1 |
End of data collection | 4 | 18 | 1 | 1 |
Manuscript draft First draft of manuscript, including introduction, methods, and results |
5 | 18 | 2 | 2 |
Manuscript submission First submission of manuscript to peer-reviewed journal |
5 | 18 | 2 | 2 |
Manuscript acceptance* Date of acceptance decision from journal |
5 | 18 | 2 | 2 |
Publication date Date of earliest publication online or in print |
4 | 17 | 2 | 2 |
*Data set included two prospective studies, nine retrospective studies and one basic science study accepted on or after April 1, 2020.
IACUC, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee; IRB, institutional review board.
The median overall project duration was 18 months (IQR 10–26). Median durations of specific phases were 2 months for project development (IQR 1–4), 6 months for execution (IQR 1–18), 2 months for writing (IQR 1–4), and 4 months for publication (IQR 2–5). Durations are compared by project type and stage in table 2. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, time to publication was prolonged for prospective versus retrospective projects (HR of publication 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.83, p=0.030) and funded versus unfunded projects (HR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.80, p=0.027). Twelve articles were accepted or published during the COVID-19 pandemic (April–June 2020). Median project duration was longer compared with pre-COVID publications in our sample (20, IQR 19–25 months, vs 13, IQR 9–40 months), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (rank-sum p=0.271).
Table 2.
Characteristic | Median (IQR) project duration (months) | ||||
Total | Development | Execution | Writing | Submission | |
Project type | |||||
Retrospective | 17 (11–19)* | 2 (<1–4) | 2 (1–9) | 2 (1–4) | 3 (2–5) |
Prospective | 42 (24–42)* | 5 (2–8) | 20 (7–28) | 9 (2–15) | 4 (4–7) |
Bench science or other | 7 (5–24)* | 6 (<1–12) | 12 (1–23) | 1 (1–2) | 3 (<1–4) |
Regulatory approval required | |||||
No | 11 (5–19)† | <1 (<1–4) | 1 (<1–3)† | 2 (1–3) | 3 (2–5) |
Yes | 20 (17–38)† | 3 (2–5) | 7 (2–26)† | 2 (1–6) | 4 (3–5) |
External funding received | |||||
No | 16 (9–20)‡ | 2 (<1–4)‡ | 2 (1–9)‡ | 2 (1–4) | 3 (2–4)‡ |
Yes | 38 (29–58)‡ | 9 (5–12)‡ | 25 (15–27)‡ | 1 (1–12) | 7 (6–14)‡ |
Trainee participation | |||||
No | 16 (5, 24) | <1 (<1–4) | 2 (1, 7) | 3 (1, 8) | 2 (1, 4) |
Yes | 19 (11, 32) | 2 (1, 4) | 7 (2, 22) | 2 (1, 4) | 4 (3, 5) |
Prior presentation | |||||
No | 18 (10, 19) | 3 (1, 4) | 2 (1, 8)§ | 2 (1, 4) | 3 (2, 5) |
Yes | 21 (11, 40) | 2 (<1, 5) | 7 (3, 26)§ | 2 (1, 4) | 4 (3, 6) |
*Statistically significant difference across project types (p<0.05) on Kruskal-Wallis test.
†Statistically significant difference according to need for regulatory approval (p<0.05) on rank-sum test.
‡Statistically significant difference according to receipt of external funding (p<0.05) on rank-sum test.
§Statistically significant difference according to prior presentation (p<0.05) on rank-sum test.
Qualitatively, centralized research support programs have been described as ‘expediting’ clinical research7 by addressing limitations of time, funding, and expertise among investigators.8–10 Short-term evaluations of such programs (<2 years) have focused on activities which can be completed in a few months, such as IRB protocol or grant submission8; or manuscript submission, but not necessarily publication.10 Indeed, within this time frame, many projects receiving central support may not reach publication. We propose that tracking project duration from conception to publication, in addition to discrete steps such as conference presentation or grant submission, can help identify opportunities for improving the research process for investigators.
Our data also have important implications for faculty career development and mentorship. In light of the typical research project duration, pursuing projects concurrently rather than sequentially is important for building a strong file for promotion and tenure. While faculty with extramural funding ultimately tend to achieve higher academic productivity,11 12 an important finding was that grant-funded research took significantly longer from conception to publication than unfunded research. Delays on grant-funded projects may be addressed by optimizing institutional grant-related processes and developing a diverse portfolio of funded and unfunded research. Lastly, we present an early comparison of project duration for publications accepted before and during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Considering the long life cycle of a typical project, the impact of the pandemic on project duration and publication is likely to continue accumulating in the months ahead and may pose serious career challenges for active scientists.
Footnotes
Correction notice: This article has been corrected since it was first published to include the Institutional Review Board approval ID.
Contributors: All authors participated in study conceptualization and design. DT, KB and DC participated in data collection. DT performed data analysis and drafted the manuscript. KB, DC, KK and KC interpreted the results and critically revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version to be submitted.
Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests: None declared.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Ethics statements
Patient consent for publication
Not required.
Ethics approval
The Institutional Review Board approval ID is UMCIRB 20-002220.
References
- 1. Balaphas A, Gkoufa K, Daly M-J, et al. Flattening the curve of new publications on COVID-19. J Epidemiol Community Health 2020;74:jech-2020-214617. 10.1136/jech-2020-214617 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Palayew A, Norgaard O, Safreed-Harmon K, et al. Pandemic publishing poses a new COVID-19 challenge. Nat Hum Behav 2020;4:666–9. 10.1038/s41562-020-0911-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Crumb L, Campbell KM, Crowe A, et al. Responding to COVID-19: perspectives on curricular changes in a rural medical school. South Med J 2020;113:368–71. 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000001124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Gottlieb M, Dehon E, Jordan J, et al. Getting published in medical education: overcoming barriers to scholarly production. West J Emerg Med 2018;19:1–6. 10.5811/westjem.2017.11.35253 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Weber-Main AM, Finstad DA, Center BA, et al. An adaptive approach to facilitating research productivity in a primary care clinical department. Acad Med 2013;88:929–38. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318295005f [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Dennis M, Batalini F, Demers L, et al. Overcoming barriers to resident scholarly productivity and research at a large academic institution. MedEdPublish 2019;8. 10.15694/mep.2019.000213.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Manring MM, Panzo JA, Mayerson JL. A framework for improving resident research participation and scholarly output. J Surg Educ 2014;71:8–13. 10.1016/j.jsurg.2013.07.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Tsikis S, Fleishman A, Chaikof EL, et al. Design and implementation of an infrastructure program to support clinical research in surgery. J Surg Res 2019;241:264–70. 10.1016/j.jss.2019.03.044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. McKinney CM, Mookherjee S, Fihn SD, et al. An academic research coach: an innovative approach to increasing scholarly productivity in medicine. J Hosp Med 2019;14:457–61. 10.12788/jhm.3194 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Thompson LA, Mercado RE, Gurka MJ, et al. A centralized research hub in a pediatric academic center. J Pediatr 2020;218:5–6. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Bajaj SS, Wang H, Williams KM, et al. National Institutes of health R01 grant funding is associated with enhanced research productivity and career advancement among academic cardiothoracic surgeons. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020;S1043-0679:30428–7. 10.1053/j.semtcvs.2020.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Boddapati V, Sachdev R, Fu MC, et al. Increasing industry support is associated with higher research productivity in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018;100:e36. 10.2106/JBJS.17.00910 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]