Questions to the article: demonstrating the ascendancy of COVID-19 research using acronyms.

The article published on 16 May 2021, is well-written and of interest, but remains several questions that are required for clarifications, such as the presentations in Table 1 and Fig. 1 that should be improved further for providing more valuable information to readers. After viewing Table 1, measuring the strength of quantity (= 0.84) referred to the next two counterparts for the top one acronym (e.g., COVID) is demonstrated using the absolute advantage coefficient (AAC). Similarly, Traditional line charts on top-eight acronyms provide us with messages, including (i) DNA and RNA are popular over three decades; (ii) CT, MRI, HIV, SARS, and CoV start in 1972, 1985, 1986, 2003, and 2003, respectively; (iii) the number of COVID substantially surpasses over other seven acronyms in 2020 though the seven acronyms are almost equal in quantity in 2020. We are interested in producing similar Table 1 and Fig. 1 with a video MP4 provided to readers who can click on the link to manipulate the scenarios on their own. We found that the AAC and the traditional line charts on a dashboard make data clear for a better understanding of demonstrating the ascendancy of COVID-19 research using acronyms. The line charts are easily examined on Google Maps.