Coronavirus research before 2020 is more relevant than ever, especially when interpreted for COVID-19

TL;DR

Prior coronavirus research significantly contributed to understanding COVID-19, with interpretative studies drawing more academic interest than primary research on SARS and MERS, highlighting the importance of contextual analysis for emerging diseases.

Contribution

This study demonstrates that interpretative research linking past coronavirus studies to COVID-19 garnered more academic attention than primary studies, emphasizing the value of contextual analysis.

Findings

Mendeley reader counts increased for SARS and MERS research in early 2020.

Studies interpreting prior coronavirus research for COVID-19 attracted more interest.

Primary SARS and MERS studies received less academic attention compared to interpretative studies.

Abstract

The speed with which biomedical researchers were able to identify and characterise COVID-19 was clearly due to prior research with other coronaviruses. Early epidemiological comparisons with two previous coronaviruses, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), also made it easier to predict COVID-19's likely spread and lethality. This article assesses whether academic interest in prior coronavirus research has translated into interest in the primary source material, using Mendeley reader counts for early academic impact evidence. The results confirm that SARS and MERS research 2008-2017 experienced anomalously high increases in Mendeley readers in April-May 2020. Nevertheless, studies learning COVID-19 lessons from SARS and MERS or using them as a benchmark for COVID-19 have generated much more academic interest than primary studies of SARS or MERS. Thus, research that interprets prior relevant research for new diseases when they are discovered seems to be particularly important to help researchers to understand its implications in the new context.