Purpose: Despite the global shutdown of universities and research laboratories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a significant and unexpected increase in scientific production was observed during 2020 and especially in 2021 (Rousseau et al., 2023). A plausible explanation is that researchers took advantage of the lockdown period to write and develop pre-existing ideas. But what happened once that stockpile of ideas was exhausted?
Design/methodology/approach: This study aims to address that question by analyzing the scientific output of fourteen highly productive countries using data from three databases: WoS, Scopus, and OpenAlex.
Findings: Our analysis shows that, following the production peak in 2021, there was a general decline over the next two years (2022 and 2023) across most Western countries, including Japan and Brazil. However, this trend was not observed in China or India, which have maintained sustained growth since 2021. Russia, by contrast, has shown a continuous decline since 2021, likely related to its involvement in armed conflicts. Notably, this pattern of decline persists even when excluding the broad category of Life Sciences and Biomedicine.
Research limitation: The observed phenomenon cannot be fully explained. A broader understanding would require the wide distribution of a questionnaire among researchers and institutions.
Practical implications: This study provides insight into how the scientific system responded through its publication output to the temporary suspension of research institutions’ activities during the COVID-19 lockdown.
Originality/value: Our analysis contributes to understanding the unusual trends in research publications due to the pandemic’s influence. It can be seen as a discussion of a natural experiment in the science of science.
Ronald Rousseau, Carlos Garcia-Zorita, Elias Sanz-Casado
. The long shadow of COVID-19[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 0
: 1
-1
.
DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2025-0035
[1] Collins, C. (2020). Productivity in a pandemic.Science, 369(6504), 603-603.
[2] Culbert J. H., Hobert A., Jahn N., Haupka N., Schmidt M., Donner P., & Mayr P. (2025). Reference coverage analysis of OpenAlex compared to Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics, 130(4), 2475-2492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05293-3
[3] Fassin, Y. (2021). Research on Covid-19: a disruptive phenomenon for bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5305-5319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03989-w
[4] Langin, K. (2021). Pandemic hit academic mothers hard, data show.Science, 371(6530), 660-660.
[5] McNutt, M. (2020). The coronavirus pandemic: Delivering science in a crisis.Issues in Science and Technology.
[6] OurResearch. (2025a, January 13). Overview | OpenAlex technical documentation. https://docs.openalex.org
[7] OurResearch. (2025b, April 21). OpenAlex | About. https://openalex.org/about#comparison
[8] Priem J., Piwowar H., & Orr R. (2022). OpenAlex: A fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts (Version 2). arXiv preprint arXiv: 2205.01833. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2205.01833
[9] Rousseau R., Garcia-Zorita C., & Sanz-Casado E. (2023). Publications during COVID-19 times: An unexpected overall increase.Journal of Informetrics, 17(4), 101461.
[10] Singh V.K., Singh P., Karmakar M., Leta J., & Mayr P. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5113-5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5
[11] van Eck N. J., Visser M. S., & Waltman L. (2024, January 30). Opening up the CWTS Leiden Ranking: Toward a decentralized and open model for data curation [Blog-Newsletter]. Leiden Madtrics. https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/opening-up-the-cwts-leiden-ranking-toward-a-decentralized-and-open-model-for-data-curation
[12] Zhang L., Cao Z., Shang Y., Sivertsen G., & Huang Y. (2024). Missing institutions in OpenAlex: Possible reasons, implications, and solutions. Scientometrics, 129(10), 5869-5891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04923-y
