In the meantime, it may be a good idea for journals to adopt the McNutt guidelines (https://pnas.org/content/115/11/2557.short…), who also sneakily relaxed the accountability guideline, or go further afield, like to the American Chemical Society, which requires only that

an author must make “significant scientific contributions to the work”. Thanks to Ulrike Hahn @SciBeh for raising this issue in the COVID-19 context, prompting this thread! BTW, here's my glam-mag piece on contributorship

For those interested in using CRediT, @mrtn_kvcs & @BalazsAczel have a tool we will be announcing soon designed to help collaborators (esp. large groups) to agree on contributions early in the project rather than at the end, which breeds disagreement. For now, DM me for details.

An example: here's the PubMed search I posted the other day referencing relevant risk perception research https://tinyurl.com/tqdgcr3 Check the search box

OK, back to searching: here's a PubMed search that pulls up psychology and mental health research for SARS, MERS and COVID-19 https://tinyurl.com/tcjlsa7 Note, I use http://tinyurl.com to link to complex PubMed searches because Twitter mangles the URL.

A brief guide for psychologists wanting to find research on the role of psychology relevant to COVID-19. You need to search for studies in the same way you search for studies normally. However, some pointers to sites and key words might be useful...

http://PubMed.gov is your co-pilot. If you're not familiar with it, it's the database of medical research. Most (but not all) mental health/psychology research is on there. Google Scholar complements PubMed well (full text search, broader scope), but we'll focus on PubMed.

Firstly, you need to familiarise yourself with the area. Difference between pandemic, epidemic and outbreak? Epidemic diseases? Flu variants by virus name? Difference between pathogen / disease name? Lots are 'neglected tropical diseases' and so might be unfamiliar. Look them up.

The more you read, the more you'll know. e.g. Médecins Sans Frontières have *years* of experience deploying psychologists to support patients and staff in medical isolation for dangerous infectious disease who interact with staff in full PPE https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=medecins+sans+frontieres+ebola+marburg+psychologist&btnG=…

Note: this is a specialist area like any other. Don't expect to 'get it in 30 minutes'. Be aware of how your limited knowledge might affect your conclusions. Assume you are missing something. Unless you work in this area (I don't) you probably are.

Note that the search terms 'epidemic' and 'epidemics' often bring up a lot of unrelated studies because they're used to describe the 'obesity epidemic' and so on. They may work better when paired with 'infection' or 'infectious', depending on the context of your search.

Including lots of specific disease / pathogen names can be useful because a lot of research is disease specific (e.g. 'psychological responses to the MERS outbreak'). Take home lesson: effective searching is a research method in itself and requires refinement over time.

Here, I used the search term "(psycholog* [ti] OR mental [ti])" as good base terms (they mean: show me every article that has a variant on the word stem 'psycholog' in the title or has 'mental' in the title) and then I specify a bunch of disease related-terms.

Also, be aware of related but non-specific research. Lots of intensive care psychologists have been working for years on psychological management of ICU patients and post-ICU trauma (hats off @dwadepsych - currently flat out reshaping their service for COVID-19)

The search term "next pandemic" is good for bringing up papers on preparations for unknown future pandemics.

Here, I've included 'epidemic' and 'epidemics' - because few studies discuss risk perception with regard to the obesity epidemic - it's quite infectious disease specific, which makes them useful in this context.

But I also includes search terms relating to SARS, Ebola, malaria, H1N1 to because lots of studies just include disease-specific terms. You could these a lot. Also, learn how to refine your search with operators (AND, OR, NOT, quoting, title only etc).

Lots of psychologists have been working for years on health messaging and behaviour change around infectious diseases.

We have in-country experience. Lots of us at the Maudsley were involved in psych support for Ebola staff. This was a major project (co-ordinated by Idit Albert, Al Beck, Elaine Hunter if I remember correctly). @charlewcole did his MSc on it! So junior folk with experience too.

Using behavioural science to help fight the coronavirus https://esri.ie/pubs/WP656.pdf And so on. There is lots of work. There are people who specialise in this. It is not an 'entirely unprecedented situation'.

Lots of relevant reviews and systematic reviews already. How Should Clinicians Integrate Mental Health Into Epidemic Responses? https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31958385 A systematic review of mental health programs among populations affected by the Ebola virus disease https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32087433

Finally, is the journal article locked and you have no access? Use @Sci_Hub - yes, I know but priorities.

New research is coming out all the time on the pre-print servers http://medrxiv.org and http://psyarxiv.org Google Scholar indexes these sites, PubMed doesn't. However, these are not peer-reviewed papers, so be aware of the quality.

10.1093/med/9780190270742.003.0003

10.31234/osf.io/8e62v

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2020.27

10.1038/d41586-020-00926-4

10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX

10.1073/pnas.1915006117

10.31234/osf.io/hsxdk

10.1017/ice.2020.104

10.1371/journal.pone.0168217

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2020.30

10.31219/osf.io/u6vz5

10.1073/pnas.1918269117

10.31234/osf.io/y2cg5

10.1126/sciadv.aay5324

10.1038/d41586-020-00935-3

10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30746-7

10.31234/osf.io/yuq7x

10.31219/osf.io/3ncmk

10.31234/osf.io/pkm2a

10.31234/osf.io/9yqs8

10.1093/med/9780199238088.003.0014

10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3976

10.1038/s42254-020-0175-7

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2020.25

10.1017/err.2020.29

DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/Z39US

“proper science without the drag” – Move to the medical model of journal review: “Yes/No” decision. We suggest the temporary adoption of this model for crisis-relevant material by journals. [happening already, but potentially even better models: @Meta_psy and @F1000Research?]

New avenues for post-publication critique: Waiting for subsequent articles too slow, social media helpful but diffuse. New formats of immediate publication critique required, so field can learn from, and analyse, research from 1st submission. Journals should add comments.

The behavioural science community must adapt to produce necessary new science, inform policy decisions, and support wider society. What changes should we make? discussion proposals here: https://psyarxiv.com/hsxdk. Main messages are:Crisis knowledge management: Reconfiguring the behavioural science community for rapid responding...The present crisis demands an all-out response if it is to be mastered with minimal damage. This means we, as the behavioural science community, need to think about how we can adapt to best support...psyarxiv.com

We need to shift our sense of what theoretical disagreements matter: focus on commonality! Many “rival theories” will say basically the same thing on key matters, focus on that for the benefit of other researchers and policy makers.

Ensure clear system of flags to distinguish different levels of review, particularly for outsiders to a field and policy-makers. Such a system must be able to follow individual publications through the time line of pre-review deposit, to final publication. [is OSF enough?]

Let’s create “open think tanks” where policy proposals could be posted for wider scrutiny in an open, parallel, and public version of the decision processes that actually take place inside government would.

To enable critique, and allow others to build on our research, we need data and code sharing; but preparing data and models for sharing is a resource intensive process. The right balance will need to be struck.

We need to continuously aggregate to try and form accessible narratives to establish policy-relevant conclusions. Wikipedia-style system should be set up now.

We need to rapidly establish dynamic databases of expertise to allow speedy, dynamic access and responding. Extant systems are fragmented, incomplete, and focussed on past research. Info needed not just on what people did, but doing now.

Managing disagreement: even when all parties act in good faith, setting aside all theoretical differences they can, disagreement will remain. Here, suppressing disagreement is undesirable. Policy-makers need to know when scientific community has a range of legitimate opinions.

Can we develop new forums for making a case and leaving third party arbiters to decide? Experiences from the development of adversarial collaborations in the last decade are likely to have valuable lessons here (Kahneman & Klein, 2009).

Funding: We need resilience (given the nature of the crisis), and we need epistemic diversity: We need small, accessible, rapid response, proposals! Also, potential diversion of already granted funds should be allowed.

Scientists live in silos: Different labels across areas are barriers to entry. Our information indexing systems (Google, WoS) are insufficient as they don’t summarise or integrate. Wikis and query posting systems needed! We are working on this.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cem.2020.361

10.1101/2020.03.30.20047597

Some communication advice for political leaders in Australia

We are notexperts on epidemiology, virology, or economics. Our personal view is that we need to opt for “Endgame C” and pro-actively isolate non-essential workersand children. We base our opinion on the evidenceand modellingthat we find most compelling. Thisis our view, butweacknowledge this is a wicked problem and there are no easy decisions.

Can A Research Accelerator Solve The Psychology Replication Crisis?

In 2008, psychologists proposed that when humans are shown an unfamiliar face, they judge it on two main dimensions: trustworthiness and physical strength. These form the basis of first impressions, which may help people make important social decisions, from whom to vote for to how long a prison sentence should be.

An initiative from the scientific community to put all available resources at the service of the fight against COVID-19.

Motivation: Most current plans to fight COVID-19 rely on the assumption that treatments and/or vaccines will be available in a few months. Delays in these treatments will have enormous consequences, both in terms of economic impact and human lives. Aim: Put the wider scientific community at the service of COVID-19 research. Context: There is now a huge pool of highly skilled scientists, willing to volunteer their time and expertise for this cause. This goes from virologists who don't have the resources to get directly involved with COVID-19 to researchers in other disciplines (bioinformatics, image analysis, AI…). This is a huge resource, the "bottleneck" being coordination. Our proposal: This is a service for COVID-19 researchers. They only need to state a wish or a task, which can go from a simple time-intensive task to be performed (e.g. transcribe data, manually annotate images), to answering a technical question which is beyond their expertise, or to setting up a collaboration. They only need to explain their request in a few lines. Then, another scientist makes the effort of understanding that request and making it reality. Of course, everything is for free. This platform works thanks to scientists who donate their time and skill in these times of emergency.

Our team of journalists has been tracking a growing list of sites publishing misinformation about COVID-19 in our Coronavirus Misinformation Tracking Center. https://newsguardtech.com/coronavirus-misinformation-tracking-center/… Our browser extension flags those and other unreliable sources of medical information.

ANNOUNCEMENT: To help combat dangerous misinformation during the COVID-19 crisis, NewsGuard is temporarily removing the paywall from our browser extension to make it free to all users. https://newsguardtech.com/free

We're pleased to launch this effort with support libraries, NGOs, security companies, and internet service providers from a range of countries and regions, including @bt_uk, @MediaLiteracyEd @TrendMicro @FOSI @AtlanticCouncil @mcclatchy @FNOMCeO & more. https://newsguardtech.com/press/a-statem

In the midst of a crisis, truth matters more than ever. We hope this initiative can help more people stay informed and healthy during this time.

Stanford virtual conference to focus on COVID‑19 and artificial intelligence

Scholars and researchers from Stanford and beyond will gather virtually for an April 1 conference open to all. The aim of the conference is to make interdisciplinary research on the novel coronavirus and artificial intelligence available to serve the public in a time of crisis.

Dear Colleague Letter on the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Dear Colleague,In light of the emergence and spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in theUnited States and abroad, the National Science Foundation (NSF) is accepting proposals toconduct non-medical, non-clinical-care research that can be used immediately to explore howto model and understand the spread of COVID-19, to inform and educate about the scienceof virus transmission and prevention, and to encourage the development of processes andactions to address this global challenge.

UPDATED April 9: Impact of Coronavirus on UKRI-supported research

The ongoing situation regarding coronavirus has significantly impacted the research and innovation community. The nature of these impacts is evolving.  Wherever we can we are taking quick decisions, identifying new issues as they emerge and providing answers and support wherever possible. This page contains the latest information for our supported researchers and innovators and is updated on a regular basis.

Opinion: Authors overestimate their contribution to scientific work, demonstrating a strong bias

10.1073/pnas.2003500117

Teamwork is an essential component of science. It affords the exchange of ideas and the execution of research that can entail high levels of complexity and scope. Collaborative science also leads to higher-impact publications relative to single-authored research projects (1). Published articles are a key product of scientific work, bearing considerable impact on researchers' academic stances and scientific reputations (2). As such, determination of the relative contribution of each coauthor to the collaborative work is of much significance, and is often reflected in the order of the authorship byline or in comments describing the differential contribution of each of the coauthors to the article (3).

A year without conferences? How the coronavirus pandemic could change research

As scientific meetings are cancelled worldwide, researchers are rethinking how they network — a move that some say is long overdue.

Today @GordPennycook & I wrote a @nytimes op ed "The Right Way to Fix Fake News" https://nytimes.com/2020/03/24/opinion/fake-news-social-media.html… tl;dr: Platforms must rigorously TEST interventions, b/c intuitions about what will work are often wrong In this thread I unpack the many studies behind our op ed 1/

Platforms are under pressure to do something about misinformation. Would be simple to rapidly implement interventions that sound like they would be effective. But just because an intervention sounds reasonable doesn’t mean that it will actually work: Psychology is complex! 2/

These are cases where intuitively compelling interventions may actually be problematic. Its essential for platforms to test if the results from these experiments generalize to actual behavior on-platform But also, intuitively UNappealing interventions may actually work well! 6/

Crowdsourcing also robust against "gaming": 1) Poll random/selected users rather than allowing anyone to contribute their opinion-Prevents coordinated attacks 2) Knowing ratings will influence ranking≠gamed responses-Most ppl dont care about politics https://psyarxiv.com/z3s5k/ 8/

For example, its intuitive that emphasizing headline's publisher (ie source) should help people tell true vs false Low quality publisher? Question the headline. But in a series of experiments, we found publisher info to be ineffective! Details: https://twitter.com/niccdias/status/1217473772166381573?s=20… 3/

What about warnings on articles factcheckers mark as false? Seems like that should reduce belief- and it does! The problem: Most false headlines never get checked (fact-checking doesnt scale) & users may see lack of warning as implying verification! https://twitter.com/DG_Rand/status/1236102072795308033?s=20… 4/

Another example: General warnings to "Watch out for fake news!" Should help keep users on their toes, right? But this can lead to people not just disbelieving false headlines, but also rejecting TRUE headlines (ie being generally suspicious) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11109-019-09533-0… 5/

Take crowdsourcing: When Facebook announced they would promote content from news outlets that users said they trusted, everyone thought it was a terrible idea! But turns out layperson source ratings actually agree quite well with fact-checkers: https://twitter.com/DG_Rand/status/1089999404898095105… 7/

Similarly, nudging people to think about the concept of accuracy makes them less likely to share misinformation This is the case in survey experiments (eg looking at sharing intentions for false and true headlines about COVID-19) https://twitter.com/DG_Rand/status/1240010913270370305?s=20… 10/

And of course, sometimes experiments find that interventions DO work the way intuition suggests For example, when people think more carefully, they are less likely to believe false headlines (but not less likely to believe true headlines) https://twitter.com/BenceBago/status/1220099034465144838?s=20… 9/

Finally, if you want to learn more, below is an always-updating doc with links to ALL of the papers @GordPennycook and I have written about misinformation / fake news (most of which also have Twitter thread summaries) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k2D4zVqkSHB1M9wpXtAe3UzbeE0RPpD_E2UpaPf6Lds/edit?usp=sharing… end/

...and also in an actual field experiment on Twitter where we sent an accuracy nudge message (asking them to rate the accuracy of a random headline) to over 5k users and found an increase in the quality of the news they subsequently shared https://twitter.com/DG_Rand/status/1196171145227251712?s=20… 11/

My group, w @j_a_tucker and Paul Resnick's groups, are having a great experience in such a collaboration with Facebook around crowdsourcing https://axios.com/facebook-fact-checking-contractors-e1eaeb8b-54cd-4519-8671-d81121ef1740.html… I hope FB, and other platforms, will do more of these! 13/

TAKE-HOME Platforms need to do rigorous tests- and if they can show they are doing so, the public needs to be patient The key: Platform transparency about evaluations they conduct internally, and collaboration with outside independent researchers who publish 12/

EU boosts efforts to adjust R&D programmes to virus crisis

The European Commission’s R&D toolbox in the COVID-19 outbreak includes extended deadlines in Horizon 2020, additional funding opportunities for viral research - and less red tape

Call for Multidisciplinary Research into Epidemics and Pandemics in Response to the Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2

The effects of the current SARS-CoV-2 outbreak have shown that epidemics and pandemics cannot be managed on a solely national level; instead, the global framework needs to be taken into account. To be better prepared for the diverse aspects of global waves of infection, it is essential to support wide-ranging research across different disciplines. In addition to investigating the current pandemic, it is important to identify fundamental research questions that produce generalizable scientific findings.

Novartis COVID-19 Response Fund will provide grants of up to USD 1 million to support communities around the world most impacted by the Coronavirus outbreak   Novartis to join collaborative R&D efforts with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard -supported COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator and a partnership with the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)  Commitments build on Sandoz pledge to maintain price stability of essential medicines and strong support of patients and healthcare systems   Company continues to maintain strong focus on protecting employee health, ensuring supply of medicines for patients and smooth clinical trial operations

Novartis announces broad range of initiatives to respond to COVID-19 Pandemic; Creates USD 20 million global fund to support impacted communities

The ANR is launching a call for projects with an accelerated process of evaluation and selection on COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) responsible for an epidemic which started at the end of 2019 and caused by the pathogenic agent coronavirus SAR-CoV-2. With an initial budget of € 3 million and targeted on four priorities identified by the WHO, this Flash call aims to rapidly support the scientific communities mobilized on COVID-19.

Flash call COVID-19

What role can the Wikimedia community play in strengthening credibility and reliability in the information ecosystem?

Complacency, Not Panic, Is the Real Danger

Only a small minority of people panic under threat, research shows. Far more don’t take the threat seriously enough.

Coronavirus Knowledge HubA trusted source for the latest science on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19

A global challenge like the current COVID-19 pandemic can only be defeated when research results are rapidly and openly shared and all stakeholders work together – scientists, health workers, publishers, funders, policymakers, and government officials.

COVID-19 Social Science Research Tracker

Social scientists have an important role during a pandemic. We can do this much better through cooperation. This international list tracks new research about COVID 19, including published findings, pre-prints, projects underway, and projects at least at proposal stage.

COVID-19 Outbreak Expert Database

Over the past few weeks, we have seen a surge in need for access to research expertise as Parliament engages with the COVID-19 outbreak. In this rapidly evolving situation, Parliament needs quick access to researchers who can provide expert insights relating to both Coronavirus and the wider situation. Parliament and Parliamentarians use these insights to help carry out their function effectively; that is to say, to represent the people, scrutinise the Government, debate important and pressing issues and pass legislation. To speed up the process of Parliament accessing relevant research expertise, we are creating a COVID-19 Outbreak Expert Database. (For more information on this Database, including FAQs, please see: https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/research-impact-at-the-uk-parliament/knowledge-exchange-at-uk-parliament/covid-19-outbreak-expert-database/) If you have any expertise relating to COVID-19 or its impacts (for example, on welfare, employment, education and other key areas), and if you would be prepared to provide expert insights to Parliament (for example, providing insights to contribute to a Library briefing, briefing a Member of Parliament, helping respond to an enquiry), we would be extremely grateful if you would sign up to our database. Many thanks, Sarah, Naomi and Laura