Amplifying the Global South Voice for an Inclusive Global Health Research Landscape
By guest contributors Karima Chaabna and Sohaila Cheema
Global North institutions and experts have long dominated the global research agenda, leading major projects and shaping health policies worldwide [1, 2]. Although this dominance has driven significant advancements in many areas of global health, it may marginalize the specific needs of communities in Global South countries. These needs can only be effectively addressed by those living close to these communities, rather than by distant Global North institutions. Researchers from these Global South regions possess invaluable contextual knowledge and cultural expertise necessary to develop solutions tailored to local health challenges [3]. Therefore, we argue for amplifying the voices of Global South researchers by enabling them to publish independently in high-impact journals without relying on Global North co-authors. Such a shift is essential to ensuring that health solutions are both contextually appropriate and culturally relevant, addressing the specific needs of local populations.
In recent decades, Global South countries, including those in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) such as Qatar, and in Sub-Saharan Africa such as South Africa, have significantly invested in strengthening research infrastructure and building scientific capacity. Initiatives such as Qatar’s National Research Fund [4] and South Africa’s Research Chairs Initiative [5], established in 2006, reflect a strong commitment to enabling local scientists and fostering robust research environments independent of Global North funding. These investments have enabled researchers to conduct studies closely aligned with the specific needs and circumstances of local communities, enhancing the impact and relevance of their work in addressing the unique health challenges these communities face.
Despite these advances, MENA researchers continue to face barriers in publishing in prestigious journals. Two-thirds of systematic reviews on MENA population health in high-impact journals are authored exclusively by Global North researchers, and those that include MENA authors also involve Global North co-authors [6]. This dependence raises critical questions: Why are Global North authors the primary voices on MENA population health issues?
Some argue that methodological quality is the primary barrier preventing MENA researchers from publishing in high-impact journals [7]. However, evidence suggests otherwise. For instance, authors from MENA often produce higher quality systematic reviews compared to their Global North counterparts, frequently incorporating a more comprehensive examination of local data through grey literature [8]. The predominance of MENA-authored reviews in open-access journals, which prioritize methodological rigor over novelty [6], suggests that quality is not the primary obstacle. If funding and research quality are not the key challenges, it raises the question of what other factors might be contributing?
There also seems to be a disconnect between MENA health priorities and the topics frequently emphasized by high-impact global health journals [6]. While non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular diseases are major health concerns in MENA [9], systematic reviews on these population health topics are underrepresented in high-impact journals,[6] which tend to prioritize infectious disease research in line with global trends [10]. This can limit the visibility of regionally important studies and perpetuate global research imbalances.
The challenges MENA researchers face in aligning their research priorities with those of high-impact global health journal priorities are echoed in other Global South regions, such as Africa [10]. We analyzed Africa-focused research articles published between September 2023 and September 2024 and found that approximately three-quarters of Lancet Global Health (76%) and nearly half of PLOS Global Public Health (46.3%) articles addressed communicable diseases, compared to only 16.7% in the Journal of Global Health. Africa’s health priorities extend beyond HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis to include non-communicable diseases, maternal and child health, health systems strengthening, nutrition, mental health, and the impact of climate change. When published research predominantly focuses on infectious diseases, other critical areas receive insufficient attention, limiting the development of comprehensive health solutions for African populations. This disconnect between local health priorities and the publication agenda of global health journals further highlights the need to amplify the voices of Global South experts to ensure all regional health challenges are represented in global health journals, fostering a more inclusive and effective global health research landscape.
Several approaches can be taken to promote greater equity in global health research. One approach is adopting a double-blind peer review process, which could help mitigate bias related to geographic or institutional affiliations [11, 12]. Diversifying editorial boards by including more members from the Global South would foster a broader range of perspectives and enhance the fairness of the review process.[13, 14, 15] Implementing fee waivers or discounts for authors from low- and middle-income countries can reduce financial barriers to publication. Additionally, creating dedicated sections or special issues focused on health challenges specific to the Global South and launching targeted calls for submissions would better align journal interests with regional priorities. Together, these strategies can promote a more equitable publication environment, allowing diverse voices to contribute meaningfully to global health research.
Global health journals should enable and facilitate Global South researchers in independently publishing their work, in order to create a more inclusive and equitable global health research landscape. By recognizing and valuing the unique contextual knowledge and expertise these researchers contribute, the global community can better align health agendas with the most pressing local and regional needs. Now is the time for global health journals to take the lead in decolonizing global health by setting a clear example. To achieve this, journals must implement strategies such as adopting double-blind peer review, diversifying representation on editorial boards, providing financial support for authors, and creating dedicated journal sections focused on regional priorities. These strategies will help bridge existing gaps and enhance the visibility of crucial regional research. Enabling Global South experts to independently shape research and health policies is crucial for decolonizing global health and achieving equitable, sustainable outcomes worldwide.
About the authors:
Dr. Karima Chaabna is an Assistant Professor and Manager of Population Health Research at Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar. She leads research on population health issues in the Middle East and North Africa and teaches educational programs in systematic reviews and biostatistics. With over 45 peer-reviewed publications, Dr. Chaabna also supports global population health through mentorship and community health initiatives.
Dr. Sohaila Cheema is the Assistant Dean for the Institute for Population Health and Associate Professor of Clinical Population Health Sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar. She is a global and public health expert with more than two decades of experience in education, research, and community programs focused on global health, lifestyle medicine, public health, non-communicable disease paradigm, and integrative medicine.
Disclaimer: Views expressed by contributors are solely those of individual contributors, and not necessarily those of PLOS.
References
1. Garcia-Basteiro AL, Abimbola S. The challenges of defining global health research. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(12). Epub 2022/01/01. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-008169. PubMed PMID: 34969684; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC8720987.
2. Redvers N, Lokugamage AU, Barreto JPL, Bajracharya MB, Harris M. Epistemicide, health systems, and planetary health: Re-centering Indigenous knowledge systems. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2024;4(8):e0003634. Epub 2024/09/01. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003634. PubMed PMID: 39208313; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC11361672.
3. Abimbola S, Pai M. Will global health survive its decolonisation? Lancet. 2020;396(10263):1627-8. Epub 2020/11/23. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32417-x. PubMed PMID: 33220735.
4. Qatar National Research Fund Qatar: Qatar Foundation; 2024. Available from: https://www.qf.org.qa/research/qatar-national-research-fund.
5. South African Research Chairs Initiative South Africa: National Research Foundation; 2024 [cited 2024]. Available from: https://www.nrf.ac.za/core-mandate-business-divisions/risa-directorates/research-chairs-and-centres-of-excellence-rcce/south-african-research-chairs-initiative/.
6. Chaabna K, Cheema S, Abraham A, Maisonneuve P, Lowenfels AB, Mamtani R. The state of population health research performance in the Middle East and North Africa: a meta-research study. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):1. Epub 2021/01/04. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01552-x. PubMed PMID: 33388080; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7777412.
7. Horton R. Medical journals: evidence of bias against the diseases of poverty. Lancet. 2003;361(9359):712-3. Epub 2003/03/07. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(03)12665-7. PubMed PMID: 12620731.
8. Chaabna K, Cheema S, Abraham A, Mamtani R. Strengthening literature search strategies for systematic reviews reporting population health in the Middle East and North Africa: A meta-research study. J Evid Based Med. 2020;13(3):192-8. Epub 2020/05/26. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12394. PubMed PMID: 32449308; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7497175.
9. The top 10 causes of death Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2024 [cited 2024]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death.
10. Ghani M, Hurrell R, Verceles AC, McCurdy MT, Papali A. Geographic, Subject, and Authorship Trends among LMIC-based Scientific Publications in High-impact Global Health and General Medicine Journals: A 30-Month Bibliometric Analysis. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2021;11(1):92-7. Epub 2020/09/23. doi: 10.2991/jegh.k.200325.001. PubMed PMID: 32959620; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7958272.
11. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B. Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2013;64(1):2-17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784.
12. Fox CW, Meyer J, Aimé E. Double-blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology. 2023;37(5):1144-57. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14259.
13. Jia Z, Liu D, Li X, Wen T, Zhao X, Li W. Composition of the editorial staff of major spinal journals based on geo-economic background: A survey analysis. Heliyon. 2024;10(7):e28541. Epub 2024/05/01. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28541. PubMed PMID: 38689993; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC11059504.
14. Jia Z, Liu D, Li X, Wen T, Zhao X, Li W. Analyzing the composition of the editorial boards in high-impact medical ethics journals: a survey study. BMC Med Ethics. 2024;25(1):13. Epub 2024/02/05. doi: 10.1186/s12910-024-01006-2. PubMed PMID: 38311761; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC10840243.
15. Obuaya CC. International submissions to journals. Lancet. 2003;361(9366):1387. Epub 2003/04/25. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13054-1. PubMed PMID: 12711490.
The post Amplifying the Global South Voice for an Inclusive Global Health Research Landscape appeared first on Speaking of Medicine and Health.