Improving modelling for epidemic responses: reflections from members of the UK infectious disease modelling community on their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic

Sherratt, K.; Carnegie, A. C.; Kucharski, A.; Cori, A.; Pearson, C. A.; Jarvis, C. I.; Overton, C.; Weston, D.; Hill, E. M.; Knock, E.; Fearon, E.; Nightingale, E.; Hellewell, J.; Edmunds, W. J.; Arenas, J. V.; Prem, K.; Pi, L.; Baguelin, M.; Kendall, M.; Ferguson, N.; Davies, N.; Eggo, R. M.; van Elsland, S.; Russell, T.; Funk, S.; Liu, Y.; Abbott, S.

doi:10.1101/2023.06.12.544667

Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2023.06.12.544667

Improving modelling for epidemic responses: reflections from members of the UK infectious disease modelling community on their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic both relied and placed significant burdens on the experts involved from research and public health sectors. The sustained high pressure of a pandemic on responders, such as healthcare workers, can lead to lasting psychological impacts including acute stress disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, burnout, and moral injury, which can impact individual wellbeing and productivity. As members of the infectious disease modelling community, we convened a reflective workshop to understand the professional and personal impacts of response work on our community and to propose recommendations for future epidemic responses. The attendees represented a range of career stages, institutions, and disciplines. This piece was collectively produced by those present at the session based on our collective experiences. Key issues we identified at the workshop were lack of institutional support, insecure contracts, unequal credit and recognition, and mental health impacts. Our recommendations include rewarding impactful work, fostering academia-public health collaboration, decreasing dependence on key individuals by developing teams, increasing transparency in decision-making, and implementing sustainable work practices. Despite limitations in representation, this workshop provided valuable insights into the UK COVID-19 modelling experience and guidance for future public health crises. Recognising and addressing the issues highlighted is crucial, in our view, for ensuring the effectiveness of epidemic response work in the future.

Source connections

Published article ↗

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and education Preprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Sherratt, K., Carnegie, A. C., Kucharski, A., Cori, A., Pearson, C. A., Jarvis, C. I., Overton, C., Weston, D., Hill, E. M., Knock, E., Fearon, E., Nightingale, E., Hellewell, J., Edmunds, W. J., Arenas, J. V., Prem, K., Pi, L., Baguelin, M., Kendall, M., Ferguson, N., Davies, N., Eggo, R. M., van Elsland, S., Russell, T., Funk, S., Liu, Y., Abbott, S.. 2023-06-12. Improving modelling for epidemic responses: reflections from members of the UK infectious disease modelling community on their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.12.544667

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2023

Evolving patterns of extremely productive publishing behavior across science

Extreme publishing behavior may reflect a combination of some authors with genuinely high publication output and of other people who have their names listed too frequently in publications because of consortium agreements, gift authorship or other spurious practices. We aimed to evaluate the evolution of extreme publishing behavior across countries and scientific fields during 2000-2022. Extreme publishing behavior was defined as having >60 full articles (original articles, reviews, conference papers) in a single calendar year and indexed in Scopus. We identified 3,191 authors with extreme publishing behavior across science excluding Physics and 12,624 such authors in Physics. While Physics had much higher numbers of extreme publishing authors in the past, in 2022 extreme publishing authors was almost as numerous in non-Physics and Physics disciplines (1,226 vs. 1,480). Excluding Physics, China had the largest number of extreme publishing authors, followed by the USA. The largest fold-wise increases between 2016 and 2022 (5-19-fold) occurred in Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Spain, India, Italy, Russia, Pakistan, and South Korea. Excluding Physics, most extreme publishing authors were in Clinical Medicine, but from 2016 to 2022 the largest relative increases (>6-fold) were seen in Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry, Biology, and Mathematics and Statistics. Extreme publishing authors accounted for 4,360 of the 10,000 most-cited authors (based on raw citation count) across science. While most Physics authors with extreme publishing behavior had modest citation impact in a composite citation indicator that adjusts for co-authorship and author positions, 67% of authors with extreme publishing behavior in non-Physics fields remained within the top-2% according to that indicator among all authors with >=5 full articles. Extreme publishing behavior has become worryingly common across scientific fields with rapidly increasing rates in some countries and settings and may herald a rapid depreciation of authorship standards.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2023

Promoting Transparent, Fair, and Inclusive Practices in Grantmaking: Lessons from the Open and Equitable Model Funding Program.

The Open Research Funders Group (ORFG) has been instrumental in promoting open and equitable scholarship to enhance academic researchs transparency and accessibility. In 2020, the ORFG formed the Equity & Open Science Working Group, leading to the launch of the Open & Equitable Model Funding Program in 2021. This program aimed to refine grantmaking processes for broader inclusivity and equitable open scholarship practices. The program gathered a cohort of 11 funding organizations and focused on applying various proposed interventions within existing funding programs to improve grantmaking practices. The initiative highlighted the importance of targeted intervention selection and the need for delimited goal-setting, revealing challenges in implementation due to limited resources and the complexity of the processes involved. Participants valued the pilot for its structured approach and opportunities for shared learning despite some facing complexities in fully implementing the interventions. The ORFGs future approach involves flexible intervention selection, effective resource management, and fostering a collaborative community, aiming for a more inclusive and practical application of open scholarship principles.

scientific communication and education↗