As if the concern about combating the fake news, there is more and more information (From scientists) about better ways to deal with the coronavirus. The phenomenon, dubbed an “infodemic” by the World Health Organization, has made it very difficult for researchers (and not only) to fully digest the rapidly evolving discoveries, making some current research obsolete even before it has been evaluated by other scientists.
Research in recent months has been very demanding and researchers consider it their duty to publish results that may be useful to clinicians. But there are always conflicts due to the growing scientific literature. 
In a opinion article In Patterns magazine, Ganesh Mani of Carnegie Mellon University, an investor, technology entrepreneur and associate member at the Software Research Institute, and Tom Hope, a postdoctoral researcher at the Allen Institute for AI, issued a distance call.
"Given the ever-increasing volume of research, it will be difficult for people to keep up," the article said.
They report in particular the flood of research information on coronaviruses. As of mid-August, more than 8.000 drafts of Covid 19-related scientific papers had been published in online medical, biological and chemical records. There is not a lot of information about depression caused by quarantine. In the field of virology, the average time used for peer review and the publication of new articles has decreased by an average of 117 days, which was initially 60 days.
So it seems increasingly attractive and perhaps necessary to combine human expertise with AI to start helping recorded results with leaps and bounds research. Too much information not only leads to impossible digestion of everything, but also to distinguishing between useful and suspect information and results. The artificial intelligence could help evaluate the research and classify it appropriately.
"We will have the same discussion with vaccines," said Mani. "We will have a lot of discussions."
Of course, technology alone cannot find a complete solution. Mani and Hope suggest new policies, such as flagging negative results from positive findings, which may be important to clinicians as they discourage scientists who have access in limited or unnecessary research. Other ideas presented in the article include identifying the top quality reviews and connection of researches with relevant literature, recall websites or legal decisions.
Artificial intelligence could help, but there is still a problem in understanding human language. So the authors state that it may be necessary for researchers to write two editions of research papers, one for humans and one for AI.
"Using such infrastructure will help society in the next big surprise or challenge, which is likely to need as much, if not more, knowledge."
