A spotlight on the stark imbalances of global health research

Bec Crew

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00752-y

IF: 64.8

2024-03-14

Nature

Abstract:An expansion of the Nature Index to include more than 60 medical journals has revealed the clear leaders in the field. An expansion of the Nature Index to include more than 60 medical journals has revealed the clear leaders in the field.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Publishing priorities in global health: A framework and empirical analysis

Stephanie L. Smith,Andrew Cho,Sarah J. Rosenberg,Jeremy Shiffman,Yusra Ribhi Shawar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2024.2404662

2024-09-26

Global Public Health

Abstract:Though vital to health policymaking processes, little is known about the distribution of attention to issues global health journals focus on or their alignment with commitments to health equity. We developed a new framework and methods to help address these analytical gaps. We used content analysis to systematically identify and novel methods to measure attention to themes, subthemes and geographies represented in more than 2,000 research articles published in two of the longest-running multidisciplinary global health journals, Bulletin of the World Health Organization and Health Policy and Planning , between 2004 and 2018. We found four major themes—health systems and conditions received the most attention, followed by population groups and policy dynamics. Finer grained analysis shows that the broad-based journals feature many common themes and some, including subthemes like communicable diseases, financing and children, are heavily favoured over others, such as workforce and noncommunicable diseases. It reveals publishing gaps for some highly marginalised groups and shows attention to health equity fluctuates. The new framework and methods can be used to (1) check the distribution of publishing attention for consistency with global health and specific journal aims and (2) support inquiry into priority setting dynamics in the broader research publishing arena.

public, environmental & occupational health
Numbers highlight US dominance in clinical research

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00755-9

IF: 64.8

2024-03-14

Nature

Abstract:Institutions from the country make unrivaled contributions to high-quality health-sciences research in the Nature Index. Institutions from the country make unrivaled contributions to high-quality health-sciences research in the Nature Index.

multidisciplinary sciences
Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals

Michael H. K. Bendels,Ruth Müller,Doerthe Brueggmann,David A. Groneberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189136

IF: 3.7

2018-01-02

PLoS ONE

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The present study aims to elucidate the state of gender equality in high-quality research by analyzing the representation of female authorships in the last decade (from 2008 to 2016).METHODS: Based on the Gendermetrics platform, 293,557 research articles from 54 journals listed in the Nature Index were considered covering the categories Life Science, Multidisciplinary, Earth & Environmental and Chemistry. The core method was the combined analysis of the proportion of female authorships and the female-to-male odds ratio for first, co- and last authorships. The distribution of prestigious authorships was measured by the Prestige Index.RESULTS: 29.8% of all authorships and 33.1% of the first, 31.8% of the co- and 18.1% of the last authorships were held by women. The corresponding female-to-male odds ratio is 1.19 (CI: 1.18-1.20) for first, 1.35 (CI: 1.34-1.36) for co- and 0.47 (CI: 0.46-0.48) for last authorships. Women are underrepresented at prestigious authorships compared to men (Prestige Index = -0.42). The underrepresentation accentuates in highly competitive articles attracting the highest citation rates, namely, articles with many authors and articles that were published in highest-impact journals. More specifically, a large negative correlation between the 5-Year-Impact-Factor of a journal and the female representation at prestigious authorships was revealed (r(52) = -.63, P < .001). Women publish fewer articles compared to men (39.0% female authors are responsible for 29.8% of all authorships) and are underrepresented at productivity levels of more than 2 articles per author. Articles with female key authors are less frequently cited than articles with male key authors. The gender-specific differences in citation rates increase the more authors contribute to an article. Distinct differences at the journal, journal category, continent and country level were revealed. The prognosis for the next decades forecast a very slow harmonization of authorships odds between the two genders.

multidisciplinary sciences
Does diversity beget diversity? A scientometric analysis of over 150,000 studies and 49,000 authors published in high-impact medical journals between 2007 and 2022

Marie-Laure Charpignon,João Matos,Luis Nakayama,Jack Gallifant,Pia Gabrielle I Alfonso,Marisa Cobanaj,Amelia Fiske,Alexander J Gates,Frances Dominique V Ho,Urvish Jain,Mohammad Kashkooli,Liam G McCoy,Jonathan Shaffer,Naira Link Woite,Leo Anthony Celi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.21.24304695

2024-03-22

MedRxiv

Abstract:Background: Health research that significantly impacts global clinical practice and policy is often published in high-impact factor (IF) medical journals. These outlets play a pivotal role in the worldwide dissemination of novel medical knowledge. However, researchers identifying as women and those affiliated with institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) have been largely underrepresented in high-IF journals across multiple fields of medicine. To evaluate disparities in gender and geographical representation among authors who have published in any of five top general medical journals, we conducted scientometric analyses using a large-scale dataset extracted from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The British Medical Journal (BMJ), The Lancet, and Nature Medicine. Methods: Author metadata from all articles published in the selected journals between 2007 and 2022 were collected using the DimensionsAI platform. The Genderize.io API was then utilized to infer each author's likely gender based on their extracted first name. The World Bank country classification was used to map countries associated with researcher affiliations to the LMIC or the high-income country (HIC) category. We characterized the overall gender and country income category representation across the medical journals. In addition, we computed article-level diversity metrics and contrasted their distributions across the journals. Findings: We studied 151,536 authors across 49,764 articles published in five top medical journals, over a long period spanning 15 years. On average, approximately one-third (33.1%) of the authors of a given paper were inferred to be women; this result was consistent across the journals we studied. Further, 86.6% of the teams were exclusively composed of HIC authors; in contrast, only 3.9% were exclusively composed of LMIC authors. The probability of serving as the first or last author was significantly higher if the author was inferred to be a man (18.1% vs 16.8%, P < .01) or was affiliated with an institution in a HIC (16.9% vs 15.5%, P < .01). Our primary finding reveals that having a diverse team promotes further diversity, within the same dimension (i.e., gender or geography) and across dimensions. Notably, papers with at least one woman among the authors were more likely to also involve at least two LMIC authors (11.7% versus 10.4% in baseline, P < .001; based on inferred gender); conversely, papers with at least one LMIC author were more likely to also involve at least two women (49.4% versus 37.6%, P < .001; based on inferred gender). Conclusion: We provide a scientometric framework to assess authorship diversity. Our research suggests that the inclusiveness of high-impact medical journals is limited in terms of both gender and geography. We advocate for medical journals to adopt policies and practices that promote greater diversity and collaborative research. In addition, our findings offer a first step towards understanding the composition of teams conducting medical research globally and an opportunity for individual authors to reflect on their own collaborative research practices and possibilities to cultivate more diverse partnerships in their work.
High-income countries remain overrepresented in highly ranked public health journals: a descriptive analysis of research settings and authorship affiliations

Dominika Plancikova,Predrag Duric,Fiona O’May

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2020.1722313

2020-02-04

Critical Public Health

Abstract:Scientific contribution in high-impact journals is largely from authors affiliated with institutions in high-income countries (HICs). Publication of papers by contribution of individual countries to leading journals can provide a picture of the most influential countries in a particular discipline. The aim of the study was to identify changes in the patterns in authorship and origin of original research articles in relation to countries' income level in the field of public health in 2016 in comparison to previous studies. A descriptive analysis was conducted based on articles published in highly ranked public health journals in 2016. Based on the inclusion criteria, 368 research articles were identified. Over 80% of these studies were conducted in HICs. Authors were mainly based in HICs (84%), especially in the USA. The majority of first, last, and corresponding authors were affiliated with HICs (over 90%). Our study might serve as a prompt for editorial and advisory boards of the leading international journals to provide more opportunities for researchers based in low and middle-income countries.

public, environmental & occupational health,social sciences, biomedical
An Emerging Trend of Equal Authorship Credit in Major Public Health Journals

Shui-Ying Lei,Yan-Ping Dong,Wei-Fang Zhu,Lan-Juan Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2771-7

2016-01-01

SpringerPlus

Abstract:Background This study aimed to identify the longitudinal trends and characteristics of the practice of explicitly giving equal credit to multiple authors of publications in public health journals. Manual searches were conducted to identify original research articles, published in five public health journals with the highest IFs according to the “2012 JCR Science Edition” between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2013, which awarded equal credit to multiple authors ( Epidemiologic Reviews , Environmental Health Perspectives , the International Journal of Epidemiology , Epidemiology , and the Annual Review of Public Health ). The Instructions to Authors in the five journals were also examined with regard to information about giving equal credit to multiple authors. Findings Statistically significant differences were noted in the annual prevalence in Environmental Health Perspectives , International Journal of Epidemiology , and Epidemiology ( r = 0.753, P = 0.012; r = 0.894, P = 0.000; r = 0.522, P = 0.122, respectively). The first two authors listed in the by-line received equal credit in the majority of articles, but this practice was also extended to authors in nearly every position on the by-line in some publications. The authors given equal credit in articles appearing in Environmental Health Perspectives , International Journal of Epidemiology , and Epidemiology were primarily from European and North American countries. Finally, none of the journals provided specific guidance regarding this practice in their Instructions to Authors. Conclusions An emerging trend of giving equal credit to multiple authors is observed in the public health journals. This practice should be better addressed in the guidance provided by journals to authors.
The Top 100 Most Cited Papers in 2022 on Global Health indexed in Web of Science

P E Taneri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckad160.1109

2023-10-01

European Journal of Public Health

Abstract:Abstract Background Even if it is a controversial topic, citation counts are frequently used as an indicator of how popular and valuable published articles are. In this study, we aim to identify and analyze the characteristics of the most cited articles in the global health area. Methods We searched the Web of Science (WoS) database with the keywords: (TS=global health) AND (PY = 2022) AND (SU=public health). We filtered highly cited articles and selected the top 100 for our analysis. Scopus was used for extracting the journals’ CiteScore 2022 metrics. We conducted frequency analysis and Spearman's correlation test wit using SPSS 27. Results Most of the articles were about COVID-19 (37%) and environmental health (36%). One of four studies about COVID-19 was investigating COVID-19's effect on the mental health of adults or children. Affiliations of the first authors were mostly from (USA 21%) or China (20%) and they were followed by India (10%). Most of the papers were reviews (38%). The other frequent study types were prevalence studies (12%), estimation studies (11%) and systematic reviews (9%). The median of the WoS core citations was 48.5 (min. 33, max 770) and overall it was 49 (min. 33, max. 792). The papers were mostly published in Lancet (7%), Science of the Total Environment (7%) and Environmental Research (6%). CiteScore median for the journals was 16.7 (min 3.8, max 131.8). There were no correlations between WoS core citations of the papers and CiteScore of the journals (Correlation Coefficient=0.075, p = 0.459) and overall citations (Correlation Coefficient=0.083, p = 0.409). Conclusions Most of the highly cited papers about global health in 2022 were published by the authors from USA and China, and the papers were mostly about COVID-19 and environmental health. The majority of the publications were reviews. This might refer to the lack of powerful original research on the topic. Key messages • Most of the highly cited papers about global health are reviews. • Our findings suggest there is no correlation between one paper’s citation number and the CiteScore of the journal that published it.

public, environmental & occupational health
How global is global health research? A large-scale analysis of trends in authorship

Michelle C Dimitris,Matthew Gittings,Nicholas B King

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003758

Abstract:Many have called for greater inclusion of researchers from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the conduct of global health research, yet the extent to which this occurs is unclear. Prior studies are journal-, subject-, or region-specific, largely rely on manual review, and yield varying estimates not amenable to broad evaluation of the literature. We conducted a large-scale investigation of the contribution of LMIC-affiliated researchers to published global health research and examined whether this contribution differed over time. We searched titles, abstracts, and keywords for the names of countries ever classified as low-, lower middle-, or upper middle-income by the World Bank, and limited our search to items published from 2000 to 2017 in health science-related journals. Publication metadata were obtained from Elsevier/Scopus and analysed in statistical software. We calculated proportions of publications with any, first, and last authors affiliated with any LMIC as well as the same LMIC(s) identified in the title/abstract/keywords, and stratified analyses by year, country, and countries' most common income status. We analysed 786 779 publications and found that 86.0% included at least one LMIC-affiliated author, while 77.2% and 71.2% had an LMIC-affiliated first or last author, respectively; however, analagous proportions were only 58.7%, 36.8%, and 29.1% among 100 687 publications about low-income countries. Proportions of publications with LMIC-affiliated authors increased over time, yet this observation was driven by high research activity and representation among upper middle-income countries. Between-country variation in representation was observed, even within income status categories. We invite comment regarding these findings, particularly from voices underrepresented in this field.
Analysis of science journalism reveals gender and regional disparities in coverage

Natalie R. Davidson,Casey S. Greene

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.21.449261

2024-03-18

Abstract:Science journalism is a critical way for the public to learn about and benefit from scientific findings. Such journalism shapes the public’s view of the current state of science and legitimizes experts. Journalists can only cite and quote a limited number of sources, who they may discover in their research, including recommendations by other scientists. Biases in either process may influence who is identified and ultimately included as a source. To examine potential biases in science journalism, we analyzed 22,001 non-research articles published by Nature and compared these with Nature-published research articles with respect to predicted gender and name origin. We extracted cited authors’ names and those of quoted speakers. While citations and quotations within a piece do not reflect the entire information-gathering process, they can provide insight into the demographics of visible sources. We then predicted gender and name origin of the cited authors and speakers. We compared articles with a comparator set made up of first and last authors within primary research articles in Nature and a subset of Springer Nature articles in the same time period. In our analysis, we found a skew toward quoting men in Nature science journalism. However, quotation is trending toward equal representation at a faster rate than authorship rates in academic publishing. Gender disparity in Nature quotes was dependent on the article type. We found a significant over-representation of names with predicted Celtic/English origin and under-representation of names with a predicted East Asian origin in both in extracted quotes and journal citations but dampened in citations.

Scientific Communication and Education
Geographic, Subject, and Authorship Trends among LMIC-based Scientific Publications in High-impact Global Health and General Medicine Journals: A 30-Month Bibliometric Analysis

Marium Ghani,Rowan Hurrell,Avelino C. Verceles,Michael T. McCurdy,Alfred Papali

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/jegh.k.200325.001

2020-01-01

Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health

Abstract:The globalization of medical research and global health's increasing popularity worldwide have resulted in greater geographic, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity of studies published in the scientific literature. Yet the geographic distribution, authorship representation, and subject trends among Low-/Low-Middle-Income Country (LIC/LMIC)-based scientific publications remain largely unknown. This analysis assesses these gaps in knowledge. We performed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of all scientific articles published between January 2014 and June 2016 in the four most prominent general medicine and five most prominent general global health journals based on impact factor. The African region, containing 24% of the global LIC/LMIC population, accounted for 49.9% of all publications. Corresponding authors with either exclusive or joint appointment to a LIC/LMIC institution were present in 26.2% of all included articles. Over one-quarter (28.8%) of all publications did not list a local author. Nearly two-thirds (62.1%) of articles published in global health journals and roughly half (52.4%) in general medicine journals involved infectious diseases. Non-HIV infectious disease studies were by far the most frequent subject areas across all journals. The trends identified in this study may help to inform the evolution and prioritization of future research efforts, thereby allowing global health to remain truly global.

public, environmental & occupational health
Scientometric trends and knowledge maps of global health systems research

Qiang Yao,Kai Chen,Lan Yao,Peng-hui Lyu,Tian-an Yang,Fei Luo,Shan-quan Chen,Lu-yang He,Zhi-yong Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-12-26

2014-06-05

Abstract:Background: In the last few decades, health systems research (HSR) has garnered much attention with a rapid increase in the related literature. This study aims to review and evaluate the global progress in HSR and assess the current quantitative trends. Methods: Based on data from the Web of Science database, scientometric methods and knowledge visualization techniques were applied to evaluate global scientific production and develop trends of HSR from 1900 to 2012. Results: HSR has increased rapidly over the past 20 years. Currently, there are 28,787 research articles published in 3,674 journals that are listed in 140 Web of Science subject categories. The research in this field has mainly focused on public, environmental and occupational health (6,178, 21.46%), health care sciences and services (5,840, 20.29%), and general and internal medicine (3,783, 13.14%). The top 10 journals had published 2,969 (10.31%) articles and received 5,229 local citations and 40,271 global citations. The top 20 authors together contributed 628 papers, which accounted for a 2.18% share in the cumulative worldwide publications. The most productive author was McKee, from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, with 48 articles. In addition, USA and American institutions ranked the first in health system research productivity, with high citation times, followed by the UK and Canada. Conclusions: HSR is an interdisciplinary area. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries showed they are the leading nations in HSR. Meanwhile, American and Canadian institutions and the World Health Organization play a dominant role in the production, collaboration, and citation of high quality articles. Moreover, health policy and analysis research, health systems and sub-systems research, healthcare and services research, health, epidemiology and economics of communicable and non-communicable diseases, primary care research, health economics and health costs, and pharmacy of hospital have been identified as the mainstream topics in HSR fields. These findings will provide evidence of the current status and trends in HSR all over the world, as well as clues to the impact of this popular topic; thus, helping scientific researchers and policy makers understand the panorama of HSR and predict the dynamic directions of research.
Longitudinal variation in national research publication portfolios: Steps required to index balance and evenness

Jonathan Adams,Gordon Rogers,Warren Smart,Martin Szomszor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00073

2020-08-01

Quantitative Science Studies

Abstract:National research diversity is explored through the balance of global and national papers in journal categories in the Web of Science (WoS) and Essential Science Indicators (ESI) and we examine the consequences of “normalizing” national publication counts against global baselines. Global balance across subject categories became more even as annual WoS indexing grew fourfold between 1981 and 2018, with a relative shift from biomedicine towards environment and technology. Change at the country level may have tracked this or been influenced by local policy and funding. We discuss choice of methods and indices for analysis: WoS categories provide better granularity than ESI; Lorenz curves are explored but found limiting; the Pratt index, Gini coefficient, and Shannon diversity are compared. At the national level, balance generally increases and is greatest in non-Anglophone countries, perhaps due to shifts in language and journal use. Two aspects of national change are revealed: the balance of actual WoS paper counts and the balance of counts normalized against world baseline. The broad patterns for these analyses are similar, but normalized data indicate relatively greater evenness. National patterns link to research capacity and regional networking opportunities, while international collaboration may blend national differences. A data set is provided for analytical use.
Faster, higher, stronger – together? A bibliometric analysis of author distribution in top medical education journals

Dawit Wondimagegn,Cynthia Ruth Whitehead,Carrie Cartmill,Eloy Rodrigues,Antónia Correia,Tiago Salessi Lins,Manuel João Costa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-011656

IF: 8.056

2023-06-01

BMJ Global Health

Abstract:Introduction Medical education and medical education research are growing industries that have become increasingly globalised. Recognition of the colonial foundations of medical education has led to a growing focus on issues of equity, absence and marginalisation. One area of absence that has been underexplored is that of published voices from low-income and middle-income countries. We undertook a bibliometric analysis of five top medical education journals to determine which countries were absent and which countries were represented in prestigious first and last authorship positions. Methods Web of Science was searched for all articles and reviews published between 2012 and 2021 within Academic Medicine , Medical Education , Advances in Health Sciences Education , Medical Teacher , and BMC Medical Education . Country of origin was identified for first and last author of each publication, and the number of publications originating from each country was counted. Results Our analysis revealed a dominance of first and last authors from five countries: USA, Canada, UK, Netherlands and Australia. Authors from these five countries had first or last authored 70% of publications. Of the 195 countries in the world, 43% (approximately 83) were not represented by a single publication. There was an increase in the percentage of publications from outside of these five countries from 23% in 2012 to 40% in 2021. Conclusion The dominance of wealthy nations within spaces that claim to be international is a finding that requires attention. We draw on analogies from modern Olympic sport and our own collaborative research process to show how academic publishing continues to be a colonised space that advantages those from wealthy and English-speaking countries.

public, environmental & occupational health
Nature, Science, and PNAS -- Disciplinary profiles and impact

Staša Milojević

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03441-5

2020-08-11

Abstract:Nature, Science, and PNAS are the three most prestigious general-science journals, and Nature and Science are among the most influential journals overall, based on the journal Impact Factor (IF). In this paper we perform automatic classification of ~50,000 articles in these journals (published in the period 2005-2015) into 14 broad areas, to explore disciplinary profiles and to determine their field-specific IFs. We find that in all three journals the articles from Bioscience, Astronomy, and Geosciences are over-represented, with other areas being under-represented, some of them severely. Discipline-specific IFs in these journals vary greatly, for example, between 18 and 46 for Nature. We find that the areas that have the highest disciplinary IFs are not the ones that contribute the most articles. We also find that publishing articles in these three journals brings prestige for articles in all areas, but at different levels, the least being for Astronomy. Comparing field-specific IFs of Nature, Science and PNAS to other top journals in six largest areas (Bioscience, Medicine, Geosciences, Physics, Astronomy, and Chemistry) these three journals are always among the top seven journals, with Nature being at the very top for all fields except in Medicine.

Digital Libraries
Mapping and visualizing global knowledge on planetary health in the climate change context: a comprehensive exploration of insights, trends, and research priorities

Zyoud, Ahed H.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00499-6

2024-09-18

Discover Sustainability

Abstract:Climate change presents a substantial global threat to human health and wellbeing. Planetary health, an emerging field, provides a comprehensive framework to comprehend the intricate interplay between ecological stability, human health, and ecosystems, particularly within the context of climate change. This study investigates the planetary health perspective on climate change by exploring global knowledge. The Scopus database is used as the source of data. The analysis encompassed a performance evaluation aimed at scrutinizing both quantitative and qualitative indicators. Visualization techniques utilizing VOSviewer software were deployed to analyze collaboration patterns, co-citation links among prominent knowledge-sharing platforms, and key topics derived from keyword co-occurrence matrices. Additionally, using SciMAT software, the study conducted thematic evolution and intellectual analyses to identify both driving and emerging themes, while also examining coherence among different themes across various periods. The study also explores policy implications, and the relevance of COVID-19 in the context of planetary health and climate change. Through this analysis, 261 relevant publications are identified, with the United States being the leading contributor (90 documents; 34.5% of publications). At the institutional level, the Australian National University secured the top position, representing 4.6% of the total with 12 documents. The Lancet Planetary Health journal was the most prolific source, contributing 15 documents (5.7%). In terms of impact, The Lancet journal held a central position as the most cited source. The primary funding organization was the Wellcome Trust, based in the United Kingdom. Motor themes shaping the future of this field include vector-borne diseases, human demographics, informal settlements, air pollution, carbon footprint of animal-based foods, and pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. The study underscores the significance of leveraging the momentum surrounding infectious diseases like COVID-19 and the impacts of climate change to advance planetary health concepts. Integration of the social sciences and enhanced multidisciplinary cooperation are crucial for progress. Additionally, increased funding for developing countries, and legislative empowerment are essential to foster further research.
A Scientometric Analysis of Africa’s Health Science Journals Indexed in International and Regional Databases: A Comparative Analysis

Apatsa Selemani,Kondwani Wella,Yen-Fu Chen,Marta Vicente-Crespo,Olalekan Uthman,Jude Igumbor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2023.1606415

2024-01-15

International Journal of Public Health

Abstract:Objectives: This study aimed to compare the geographic coverage, citation impact, subject trends and authorship collaboration pattern of African health science journals indexed in international and regional databases. Methods: Data was collected from Ulrichs web serials directory, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, PubMed, Google scholar, African Index Medicus (AIM) and African Journals Online (AJOL) between February 2023 and May 2023. Data was analysed using summary descriptive statistics such as percentages and interquartile ranges, and through network visualisation. Results: More than 40 African countries had no any health science journal indexed in WoS, whereas 20 African countries did not have any health science journal indexed in AJOL and AIM. The Journal of Advanced research was the top performing journal on almost all journal metric lists such as Google scholar’s H5-Index, SNIP, Journal Impact Factor, and Citescore, except Journal Citation indicator. Conclusion: The coverage of African health science journals by international citation databases is still limited which result in low scientific impact of many African health science journals. Authorship collaboration is related to historical ties among countries.

public, environmental & occupational health
How far has the globe gone in achieving One Health? Current evidence and policy implications based on global One Health index

Qiyu Zhang,Jingshu Liu,Lefei Han,Xinchen Li,Chensheng Zhang,Zhaoyu Guo,Anqi Chao,Chenxi Wang,Erya Wan,Fumin Chen,Hanqing Zhao,Jiaxin Feng,Jingbo Xue,Lulu Huang,Jin Chen,Zhishan Sun,Zile Cheng,Jingxian Yin,Zhengze He,Liangyu Huang,Logan Wu,Siwei Fei,Siyu Gu,Tiange Jiang,Tianyun Li,Weiye Chen,Nan Zhou,Ne Qiang,Qin Li,Runchao He,Yi Zhang,Min Li,Xiangcheng Wang,Kokouvi Kassegne,Yongzhang Zhu,Leshan Xiu,Qinqin Hu,Kun Yin,Shang Xia,Shizhu Li,Zhaojun Wang,Xiaokui Guo,Xiaoxi Zhang,Xiao-Nong Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soh.2024.100064

2024-02-20

Abstract:Background: In the 21st century, as globalization accelerates and global public health crises occur, the One Health approach, guided by the holistic thinking of human-animal-environment and emphasizing interdisciplinary collaboration to address global health issues, has been strongly advocated by the international community. An immediate requirement exists for the creation of an assessment tool to foster One Health initiatives on both global and national scales. Methods: Built upon extensive expert consultations and dialogues, this follow-up study enhances the 2022 global One Health index (GOHI) indicator system. The GOHI framework is enriched by covering three indices, e.g. external drivers index (EDI), intrinsic drivers index (IDI), and core drivers index (CDI). The comprehensive indicator system incorporates 13 key indicators, 50 indicators, and 170 sub I-indicators, utilizing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to ascertain the weight for each indicator. Weighted and summed, the EDI, IDI, and CDI scores contribute to the computation of the overall GOHI 2022 score. By comparing the ranking and the overall scores among the seven regions and across 160 countries/territories, we have not only derived an overall profile of the GOHI 2022 scores, but also assessed the GOHI framework. We also compared rankings of indicators and sub I-indicators to provide greater clarity on the strengths and weaknesses of each region within the One Health domains. Results: The GOHI 2022 performance reveals significant disparities between countries/territories ranged from 39.03 to 70.61. The global average score of the GOHI 2022 is 54.82. The average score for EDI, IDI, and CDI are 46.57, 58.01, and 57.25, respectively. In terms of global rankings, countries from North America, Europe and Central Asia, East Asia and Pacific present higher scores. In terms of One Health domains of CDI, the lowest scores are observed in antimicrobial resistance (median: 43.09), followed by food security (median: 53.78), governance (median: 54.77), climate change (median: 64.12) and zoonotic diseases (median: 69.23). Globally, the scores of GOHI vary spatially, with the highest score in North America while lowest in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, evidence shows associations between the socio-demographic profile of countries/territories and their GOHI performance in certain One Health scenarios. Conclusion: The objective of GOHI is to guide impactful strategies for enhancing capacity building in One Health. With advanced technology and an annually updated database, intensifying efforts to refine GOHI's data-mining methodologies become imperative. The goal is to offer profound insights into disparities and progressions in practical One Health implementation, particularly in anticipation of future pandemics.
Exploring Environmental Health Inequalities: A Scientometric Analysis of Global Research Trends (1970-2020)

Sida Zhuang,Gabriele Bolte,Tobia Lakes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127394

2022-06-16

Abstract:Environmental health inequalities (EHI), understood as differences in environmental health factors and in health outcomes caused by environmental conditions, are studied by a wide range of disciplines. This results in challenges to both synthesizing key knowledge domains of the field. This study aims to uncover the global research status and trends in EHI research, and to derive a conceptual framework for the underlying mechanisms of EHI. In total, 12,320 EHI publications were compiled from the Web of Science core collection from 1970 to 2020. Scientometric analysis was adopted to characterize the research activity, distribution, focus, and trends. Content analysis was conducted for the highlight work identified from network analysis. Keyword co-occurrence and cluster analysis were applied to identify the knowledge domain and develop the EHI framework. The results show that there has been a steady increase in numbers of EHI publications, active journals, and involved disciplines, countries, and institutions since the 2000s, with marked differences between countries in the number of published articles and active institutions. In the recent decade, environment-related disciplines have gained importance in addition to social and health sciences. This study proposes a framework to conceptualize the multi-facetted issues in EHI research referring to existing key concepts.
[Scientometric analysis of the main thematic fields and keywords in the subject area «Public health, environmental and occupational health»]

E I Aksenova,K Yu Tarkhov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32687/0869-866X-2023-31-s2-1104-1108

Abstract:Research in the field of public health at the global, national, regional and organizational levels continue to be relevant, attracting attention of the researchers who find new aspects of various problems and issues for consideration and analysis in this area. The paper presents results of a scientometric analytical study of the publication landscape for 2019-2021 in the field of public health, using the analytical platform SciVal, the data source for which is the international scientific database Scopus. The study shows positive dynamics and steady growth in most scientometric indicators in the subject area under consideration during the study period. A structural-functional and semantic-linguistic analysis of the top-50 keywords was also carried out, which showed that their ranking position significantly depends on the choice of one of two indicators: either by the number of publications or by relevance. Publications on public health are characterized by a polythematic distribution, providing researchers with the opportunity to make a wide choice in conducting scientific research in the branches of medical science they are interested in, taking into account scientometric indicators characterizing the publication landscape in these areas.

A spotlight on the stark imbalances of global health research

Publishing priorities in global health: A framework and empirical analysis

Numbers highlight US dominance in clinical research

Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals

Does diversity beget diversity? A scientometric analysis of over 150,000 studies and 49,000 authors published in high-impact medical journals between 2007 and 2022

High-income countries remain overrepresented in highly ranked public health journals: a descriptive analysis of research settings and authorship affiliations

An Emerging Trend of Equal Authorship Credit in Major Public Health Journals

The Top 100 Most Cited Papers in 2022 on Global Health indexed in Web of Science

How global is global health research? A large-scale analysis of trends in authorship

Analysis of science journalism reveals gender and regional disparities in coverage

Geographic, Subject, and Authorship Trends among LMIC-based Scientific Publications in High-impact Global Health and General Medicine Journals: A 30-Month Bibliometric Analysis

Scientometric trends and knowledge maps of global health systems research

Longitudinal variation in national research publication portfolios: Steps required to index balance and evenness

Faster, higher, stronger – together? A bibliometric analysis of author distribution in top medical education journals

Nature, Science, and PNAS -- Disciplinary profiles and impact

Mapping and visualizing global knowledge on planetary health in the climate change context: a comprehensive exploration of insights, trends, and research priorities

A Scientometric Analysis of Africa’s Health Science Journals Indexed in International and Regional Databases: A Comparative Analysis

How far has the globe gone in achieving One Health? Current evidence and policy implications based on global One Health index

Exploring Environmental Health Inequalities: A Scientometric Analysis of Global Research Trends (1970-2020)

[Scientometric analysis of the main thematic fields and keywords in the subject area «Public health, environmental and occupational health»]