The case for a regional approach to publication impact

Abstract

Healthcare-related research is largely regional. Put simply, this is because disease burdens differ between world regions. Even global burdens, such as ischaemic heart disease and cancer, display distinctive characteristics in certain regions that are not seen in others. Regional differences in infrastructure, resources and human capital further compound the differences seen, as they affect the way in which the local scientific community can interact with the local disease burden. As such, it seems fair to assume that healthcare-related research ought to be regionally distributed. Although translation of research between regions can sometimes be done, the larger the gap in infrastructure, resources or human capital between regions, the less likely it is that it can be adequately bridged. A recent example of this pertains to accepted life-saving treatment for sepsis in high-income settings, which had the opposite effect when implemented and evaluated in low-income Zambia. This regionality of clinical medicine is, however, not reflected in academic publishing; the impact of a journal is measured and understood by metrics that use the world as their denominator. Therefore, top medical journals are perceived to be relevant equally to all contexts and regions. However, there is a strong case to be made that this lack of granularity is deleterious, and that the creation of a regional impact metric would place clinicians, researchers, and libraries in a better position to understand which journals are relevant to their context and practice.

Systematic Review of Cancer Research Output From Africa, With Zambia as an Example

“…Research results drawn from those countries may not necessarily be generalized to other African countries. 24 The link between GDP and cancer research output is weak and needs further evaluation. There is a need to invest more resources in non-HIV-associated cancer research in Zambia.…”

The current state of African oncology research publication: how to increase Africa’s research impact

“…There is a major inequity in the availability of high‐quality, local data from African countries [13]. Poor English language skills, lack of experience in applying the research method, and lack of funding are all part of the problem [14]. The inequality of global publication systems is also to blame, whereby research from the global North is seen as ‘mainstream’ or ‘international’ and research from the developing world is of ‘local’ interest only and therefore lacking sufficient impact for inclusion in the system unless it addresses issues that are of specific interest to Northern readers [15].…”