The spread of the Sars-COV-2 pandemic in 2020 had a huge impact on the life course of all of us. This rapid spread has also caused an increase in the research production in topics related to COVID-19 with regard to different aspects. Italy has, unfortunately, been one of the first countries to be massively involved in the outbreak of the disease. In this paper we present an extensive scientometric analysis of the research production both at global (entire literature produced in the first 2 years after the beginning of the pandemic) and local level (COVID-19 literature produced by authors with an Italian affiliation). Our results showed that US and China are the most active countries in terms of number of publications and that the number of collaborations between institutions varies according to geographical distance. Moreover, we identified the medical-biological as the fields with the greatest growth in terms of literature production. Furthermore, we also better explored the relationship between the number of citations and variables obtained from the data set (e.g. number of authors per article). Using multiple correspondence analysis and quantile regression we shed light on the role of journal topics and impact factor, the type of article, the field of study and how these elements affect citations.

The journal impact factor (JIF) is often equated with journal quality and the quality of the peer review of the papers submitted to the journal. We examined the association between the content of peer review and JIF by analysing 10,000 peer review reports submitted to 1,644 medical and life sciences journals. Two researchers hand-coded a random sample of 2,000 sentences. We then trained machine learning models to classify all 187,240 sentences as contributing or not contributing to content categories. We examined the association between ten groups of journals defined by JIF deciles and the content of peer reviews using linear mixed-effects models, adjusting for the length of the review. The JIF ranged from 0.21 to 74.70. The length of peer reviews increased from the lowest (median number of words 185) to the JIF group (387 words). The proportion of sentences allocated to different content categories varied widely, even within JIF groups. For thoroughness, sentences on 'Materials and Methods' were more common in the highest JIF journals than in the lowest JIF group (difference of 7.8 percentage points; 95% CI 4.9 to 10.7%). The trend for 'Presentation and Reporting' went in the opposite direction, with the highest JIF journals giving less emphasis to such content (difference -8.9%; 95% CI -11.3 to -6.5%). For helpfulness, reviews for higher JIF journals devoted less attention to 'Suggestion and Solution' and provided fewer Examples than lower impact factor journals. No, or only small differences were evident for other content categories. In conclusion, peer review in journals with higher JIF tends to be more thorough in discussing the methods used but less helpful in terms of suggesting solutions and providing examples. Differences were modest and variability high, indicating that the JIF is a bad predictor for the quality of peer review of an individual manuscript.