Ensuring editorial continuity and quality of science during the COVID-19 storm: the ICM experience

Thomas Bein, Alessia Vargiolu, Giuseppe Citerio, Samir Jaber, Miet Schetz, Anders Aneman, Yaseen Arabi, Katherine Brown, Alain Combes, Michael Darmon, Audrey Jong, Sharon Einav, Niall Ferguson, Morten Hylander Møller, Ignacio Martin-Loeches, Paul Mayo, Geert Meyfroidt, Garyphallia Poulakou, Otavio Ranzani, Claudio SandroniManu Shankar-Hari

Risultato della ricerca: Contributo in rivistaArticolo in rivista


We analyzed the manuscript submissions to ICM and the responses of the invited reviewers from January to April 2020, and compared the findings of peer-review activity with the same time span in 2019. From January 1st to April 30th 2020, there was a considerable increase in submissions (1201 total submissions, 617 of which were COVID-related) over the comparable time in 2019 (554 total submissions). In both cases, the average percentage of advanced rejections was around 60.In 2019, 180 manuscripts were sent to 1.271 reviewers. In the comparable period of 2020, 296 manuscripts were sent out to 1.741 reviewers. Despite the rapid and massive increase in workload for intensive care health professionals due to the ‘Corona crisis’ our findings suggest that, overall, the peer-review activity in high-quality intensive care journals has not suffered a crisis and does guarantee the continuity of one of the columns of quality in science.
Lingua originaleEnglish
pagine (da-a)1918-1920
Numero di pagine3
RivistaIntensive Care Medicine
Stato di pubblicazionePubblicato - 2020


  • Betacoronavirus
  • COVID-19
  • Coronavirus Infections
  • Pandemics
  • Peer Review
  • Pneumonia, Viral
  • SARS-CoV-2


Entra nei temi di ricerca di 'Ensuring editorial continuity and quality of science during the COVID-19 storm: the ICM experience'. Insieme formano una fingerprint unica.

Cita questo