Comment on the article: The state of social science research on COVID‑19.

Abstract

A well-written and interesting article was published on November 21, 2021.Future relevant studies, however, may be improved by implementing (1) a framework that outlines the overall research; (2) an author-weighted scheme (AWS) that accurately quantifies the contributions of entities to articles; and (3) a more appropriate size for the nodes representing the proportional counts for each entity in social network analysis (SNA).VOSviewer was used to construct and visualize the scientometric networks and the relation-based analyses included three categories: (1) citation relations, (2) word cooccurrences, and (3) coauthorship relations. Nevertheless, the counts for each topical entity have not been consistently integrated.As a result, the nodes of the keyword co-occurrence network are large when compared to the number of connections between the entities or terms (i.e., the total number of relationships between co-occurring terms or entities). Additionally, all weighted counts in keywords (or the total link strength of a country/region) should equal the total number of documents (e.g., n = 9954 in that article).This would lead to biases in the calculation of publications (or citations) for entities, as is common in traditional SNA.This node illustrates a study framework and a couple of AWSs (i.e., equal and nonequal AWSs) to improve the article, and discusses the need to understand the requirement that the total centrality degree in SNA equals the total number of documents (or citations).