The case for a regional approach to publication impact

Area of Science:

• Global Health
• Medical Research
• Health Equity

Background:

• Healthcare research is inherently regional, influenced by diverse disease burdens, infrastructure, and human capital across different global areas.
• Global health challenges like heart disease and cancer exhibit distinct regional characteristics, necessitating localized research approaches.
• Disparities in resources and infrastructure impede the effective translation of research findings between high-income and low-income settings, as exemplified by sepsis treatment in Zambia.

Discussion:

• Academic publishing metrics, such as journal impact factors, typically use a global denominator, assuming universal relevance.
• This global perspective fails to acknowledge the significant regional variations in healthcare needs and research applicability.
• The current system may disadvantage researchers and clinicians in low-resource settings by promoting journals less relevant to their specific contexts.

Key Insights:

• Regional differences in disease prevalence and healthcare capacity are critical factors in medical research.
• Globalized academic metrics do not adequately capture the contextual relevance of scientific journals for diverse regions.
• A lack of regional granularity in impact assessment can be detrimental to local healthcare research and practice.

Outlook:

• Developing regional impact metrics for academic journals is crucial for better contextual understanding.
• Such metrics would empower clinicians, researchers, and libraries to identify publications most relevant to their specific geographic and healthcare environments.
• This shift could foster more equitable and effective global health research dissemination and application.