Reaching OA’s potential

One of the principal aims of Open Access (OA) has always been to democratize knowledge by making research free to read; however, that should be the starting point, not the ultimate goal. Perhaps it’s time to step back and ask ourselves, “Are we in danger of becoming preoccupied with the ‘access’ aspect of open – neglecting the other components that make research successful?”

In our rush to remove paywalls and ‘financial barriers’, could it be that we are simply equating ‘freely available’ to ‘truly accessible’? How valuable is making research content accessible without it being discoverable? And how beneficial is it for an end user to find content if they don’t see its relevance, or if they can’t act on it?

Access alone isn’t enough. If research isn’t discoverable, understandable, or actionable for the people who need it (policymakers, practitioners, researchers across regions and community organizations), then OA has fallen short of its full potential. 

The ability to get research into the hands of those who can fully capitalize on it is a crucial factor to research success, but in practice, significant gaps and disconnects are evident – particularly from a data and systems perspective. We have made huge progress in terms of the volume of research that is technically ‘open’, however we now need to find out who is actually benefiting.

Current narrative suggests that OA articles are more likely to be cited – but our data suggests this isn’t universally true, or at least that there is more to the story. In addition, citations alone don’t tell us who’s engaging with the content or whether it’s reaching communities outside of academia.

If equity in research means the ability to publish and participate in research fairly, (regardless of location, career stage or discipline), should we accept that the measure of success is whether an article has been published OA? Or should we be measuring success based on whether the research achieves its intended aims, reaches its intended audience, and enables meaningful participation across global research communities?

This blog will look at what ‘access’, taken in isolation, is and what it isn’t. Using data from Dimensions, extracted from the Dimensions on GBQ environment alongside World Bank data on GBQ, we challenge the notion that emphasis on publishing OA is enough to ensure equitable participation. We explore what happens when we focus on access without discoverability. We assess whether research participation is happening in a balanced way or whether there are barriers to journal publication – including but not limited to Article Processing Charges (APCs) – and engagement.

To help us with this, we have conducted a benchmarking and data interpretation exercise to understand the wider problem of participation in research. 

SDGs case study

Let’s begin with a common assumption: that publishing is the ultimate goal for a researcher, and that lower-middle and low-income countries struggle to publish OA at the same rate as upper-middle and high-income countries due to the financial challenges associated with APCs.

The visual on the left (in Chart 1) shows us the number of gold OA articles published in 2023. This view alone might suggest that lower-income countries are being prevented from publishing OA compared to upper-income countries. However, benchmarking against the overall amount of research from these regions shows the reverse – low-income (LIC) and lower-middle-income countries (LMIC) are producing proportionately more OA content.

With this data in mind we dismiss the notion that a general analysis of open participation will drive further insight and shift to participation at journal level. For this analysis, it is useful to consider participation in these terms: where there is intent to contribute to a research topic, is that intent being met or prevented through journal selection and traditional impact measures?

To see this in action, we decided to focus this case study on Indonesian researchers’ contribution to SDG 4, Quality Education.

• We focused on Indonesia because in 2023 Indonesia was the second-highest producer of research articles among LMIC countries with a high amount of OA content. (NB: We will not delve into the reasons behind Indonesia’s high output in this piece.)
• We focused on SDG 4 because Indonesian researchers produced a substantial, and outsized, amount of Quality Education research. More than any other country and roughly 10% of overall research aligned to SDG 4 (as seen in Chart 2).

In a world where participation in global research was truly balanced and contributions to knowledge were reflected proportionally, if Indonesia contributes 10% of overall research to quality education, we would hope to see the 10% Indonesian representation happen at journal level as well.

To view this, we analyzed journals publishing the most research articles aligned with SDG 4 and benchmarked them against common markers for citation impact and attention. We then assessed the representation of Indonesian research within these journals. Specifically, we calculated the proportion of SDG 4-aligned research with at least one Indonesian-affiliated researcher, aiming for a 10% representation rate. The results are shown in the visual below (Chart 3).

Our journal-level analysis revealed that the desired 10% participation rate was not met. There was an imbalance within the journals around the level of Indonesian research present. Notably, this imbalance occurred across varying access types and associated publication fees. At the top, Education and Information Technologies, our highest-cited journal, a hybrid title, showed ~2% Indonesian representation. Education Sciences, a gold title that scored middle-ish for citation average, has less than 1%. The largest portion of Indonesian research appeared at the bottom left in two diamond-access, regional titles where we saw lower average scores in both citation and attention.

Therefore, a barrier may be the APCs; usually higher for market leading, established journals. (We’d highlight that Cogent Education is the closest to meeting the 10% participation rate and is a publication that does charge an APC but also offers waivers for LIC and LMIC countries.) However, this is just one of many potential barriers to equitable participation and one addressed by programs like Research4Life and publisher-led, global discounting practices. Our focus here was viewing the research holistically, taking into account how open practices have supported or hindered participation through both journal selection and research impact.

This view (Chart 3) highlights the challenge seasoned publishers face in balancing publication preferences, what motivates or prevents a researcher to select that journal, and readership habits, which encompass both accessibility and discoverability, the kind of discoverability established journals typically offer. The low metrics for the diamond OA journals (bottom left, Chart 3) illustrate the challenge for journals of ensuring research reaches readers.

Publisher mediation

To look closer at the intersection between the two sides publishers must mediate to ensure research meets its potential, we first focus on publication preferences. Many publishers aim to remove participation barriers so we can share quality research in a balanced, fully representational way. How can publishers work to ensure this proportional representation?

One approach is reducing costs of APCs, another is raising awareness. Emerald Publishing uses Dimensions data to benchmark the locale of research relative to our journal level subjects and try to balance Editorial Advisory Board (EAB) selection proportionally. This practice aims to inform publishers and editors where the research is coming from, without compromising EAB selection quality; addressing this at journal level regardless of access type or other unintended barriers.

The other aspect of this publisher mediation, and the one crucial to ensuring research is seen by the intended audience, is understanding reader habits. It is important  to understand the benefits of making research openly accessible versus accessible, findable, and usable. Access in isolation, without the presence of discoverability to ensure the work reaches the end user, is not enough.

Below we can see the average citations for the top 100 most productive countries by access type (Table 1). We conclude from this brief view that hybrid titles generate more citation activity as they are the established journals that have an established readership base.

It is probable that the imbalance in Indonesian representation is shaped by the age and prestige of journals themselves. For the most part, Open Access journals are younger than their subscription-based closed counterparts, and because Journal Impact Factors (JIFs) are based on a two-year citation window, newer journals (both open and closed access) are naturally disadvantaged.

As a result, newer journals that cover emerging or interdisciplinary areas, such as research aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), may find it difficult to achieve similar visibility and ‘reputation’. This creates a compounding effect: newer OA journals may be more inclusive and open to geographically diverse contributions, yet they lack the discoverability and citation momentum of older, established titles.

In turn, researchers from countries like Indonesia are more likely to publish in regional, Diamond OA journals – which remain under-recognized in global research metrics despite playing a crucial role in local knowledge and research ecosystems. 

This echoes the concerns raised in the Budapest Open Access Initiative 20th anniversary recommendations (BOAI20), which call for a more equitable and inclusive approach to Open Access – one that recognizes the value of diverse publication venues, fosters participation from underrepresented communities, and moves beyond outdated prestige indicators.

This points to a deeper issue: when discoverability and prestige are unequally distributed across journals, people may judge research quality based on where it’s published, rather than on the actual quality of the research.

A pattern emerges

This brings us to further consider the practice of prioritizing access above all else, how this may perpetuate bias in the system arising from assessing research quality based on its potential reach, and how that can be hindered by the journal itself.

We examined the quality of Indonesian research in high-output titles and found that when venue and discoverability practices align, Indonesian research citations are above average, dispelling any assumption about overall ‘quality’ that may arise from most Indonesian researchers prioritizing access when selecting journal (Chart 4).

This prompted a further question: Even when quality is demonstrable, is it being recognized globally? A parallel analysis examining citation practices across all low-income countries allowed us to test whether the patterns we observed with Indonesian research reflect broader systemic issues. We found a consistent pattern: research from low-income countries is often overlooked in citation practices, even when it is highly relevant and well-aligned with global priorities and even when it aligns closely with the focus of the citing publication.

In a parallel analysis, we found a consistent pattern: research from low-income countries is often overlooked in citation practices, even when it is highly relevant and well-aligned with global priorities and even when it aligns closely with the focus of the citing publication.

The parallel analysis examined global research output from 2013 to 2023, focusing on contributions to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), excluding SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) given its high proportion of research. Using author affiliations from the Dimensions database, we categorized publications by author country and matched them to World Bank income group classifications. This allowed us to compare research priorities between high-income and low-income countries over this time.

As shown in the chart below, there are clear differences in thematic focus. Researchers in low-income countries disproportionately prioritize areas like SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation – topics that directly reflect the urgent, lived realities in these regions. In contrast, high-income countries show a stronger focus on SDGs such as Affordable and Clean Energy and Partnerships for the Goals. These differing priorities demonstrate the local expertise and indigenous knowledge embedded in lower-income regions – expertise that, as shown in our citation analysis, is not being adequately acknowledged or cited in global research outputs.

In critical areas such as Zero Hunger and Clean Water and Sanitation – topics where low-income countries often hold deep, practical expertise – our citation analysis reveals minimal inclusion of their work by researchers in high-income countries. Specifically, just 0.2% of references in high-income country publications on these SDGs cite publications where authors are based solely in low-income countries. In contrast, over 70% of the references come from publications with authors affiliated exclusively with high-income institutions (74% for Zero Hunger and 71% for Clean Water and Sanitation).

Even when we broaden the scope to include any contribution from a low-income country, the numbers remain stark: 1.41% for Zero Hunger and 1.22% for Clean Water and Sanitation. This is despite the fact that these regions face the most urgent realities tied to these challenges – and who are actively publishing in these areas.

These findings point to a clear disconnect between where expertise exists and where it is recognized. In both Zero Hunger and Clean Water and Sanitation, areas where low-income countries have direct, practical experience, we see how research is vastly under-cited by high-income country publications. This underrepresentation suggests a missed opportunity to draw on locally grounded knowledge that could meaningfully shape global solutions.

Conclusion

This isn’t about a lack of relevant research. It’s about discoverability, visibility, and deeply embedded citation habits. Open Access isn’t just about making research available, it’s about making sure that research is seen, used, and respected within the global knowledge ecosystem.

Emerald has recently launched the Open Lab, which looks at the research ecosystem and how open practices impact it. Its goal is to find real solutions to some of the problems not yet addressed by open practices and some of the problems created by them.

We hope this analysis encourages thoughtful discussion on where the focus should shift, thus allowing us to effectively evaluate the success of Open Access and help ensure that all research can meet its full potential.

Authors:

Ann Campbell, Technical Solutions Manager, Digital Science
Katie Davison, Insights Analyst, Emerald Publishing

The post Access vs Engagement – is OA enough? appeared first on Digital Science.

In this installment, we delve deeper into the world of data availability statements (DAS) using Trust Marker data from Digital Science’s Dimensions database.

We further explore the collaboration efforts at different levels supporting research endeavors that exemplify best practices by including a DAS, shedding some light on the key players driving transparency and reproducibility in academic research. More importantly, we explore DAS trends and insights around particular collaborations between countries within certain income groups and investigate the case of Ethiopia as a country with outstanding Trust Marker performance. 

An examination of DAS and other Trust Marker data reveals some interesting trends in research collaboration and transparency across different income regions. Several key takeaways emerge:

• Both national and international collaborations across multiple income groups tend to have higher rates of DAS adoption compared to research output from single institutions. International and national research often necessitates more comprehensive data management plans. This appears to positively influence DAS practices. 
• Lower income countries exhibit high levels of DAS adoption within nationally collaborative and independent research. This is exemplified by the impressive growth in Ethiopia’s DAS rates across publications with national, international, and single institutional affiliations. Internal policies and a strategic national focus on areas like health seem to be key drivers.
• While higher income countries demonstrate steady improvement in DAS rates over time, the growth trajectory lags behind that of low-income regions in collaborative and independent research scenarios.

Introduction

In Part I of Navigating Trust in Academic Research: The Rise of Data Availability Statements, we discussed the rapid expansion of Data Availability Statements (DAS) practices globally, with substantial growth occurring in the last three years. The growth, however, has not been shared equally among some of the countries we sampled. While countries such as China, Australia, Canada, and the UK have witnessed a significant surge in the adoption of DAS, others have experienced more modest increases or variations in their DAS practices. These disparities highlight the need for a closer examination of the factors contributing to the divergent trends in DAS practices within academic research across different regions.  

As we continue our exploration, we first shift our focus from the presence of a DAS to the underlying collaborative landscape examining patterns of collaboration across income groups.

Methodology 

In conducting this analysis, we again rely on Digital Science’s Dimensions database and the Dimensions Research Integrity dataset. We use the Dimensions on Google BigQuery provision to extract data on research output, underlying funder data and associated countries using the organization associated with each author. Additional country data from the Google BigQuery World Bank dataset is also integrated for further analysis. Research output for this study excludes books, chapters and monographs. 

As with Part I of the blog, we limit research outputs from 2017 to 2022 to ensure focused analysis. We extracted metadata from the research outputs including Fields of Research (FoR), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), supporting funder, author affiliation including institution and country, and the associated Economic Development Class as defined by the World Bank dataset (publicly available in the BigQuery environment). Where we are exploring underlying funder trends, only those publications where an underlying funder has been identified are included.   

Research output is associated with an income group if at least one author is affiliated with a country within that income group at the time of publication.

Findings

Figure 1 shows the growth of DAS according to the World Bank’s classification of countries by income groups. Low-income countries are leading in DAS practices, with publications containing DAS increasing from just below 20% in 2017 to approximately 55% in 2022. Both the high-income group and the upper-middle-income group exhibit similar growth patterns, with DAS adoption rates rising from very low levels in 2017 to over 30% in 2022. The lower-middle-income group lags behind, showing a widening gap in DAS practices compared to other income groups, despite its natural rate of improvement over the same period.

This overall trend may come to the surprise of some, as there is a common perception that research culture and practices tend to be more robust within higher-income groups. Addressing this question requires us to delve deeper into the factors that potentially influence the adoption of trust markers and the distinctive dynamics within each income stratum. We do so by looking into the trends and dynamics of research collaborations, the underlying funder patterns, and their potential role in shaping DAS practices.

Collaborations and DAS practices

Table 1 presents the total volume and proportion of publications containing DAS, for those that have no collaboration (outside the authors institution), national collaboration and international collaboration over the past six years (i.e., 2017-2022). Overall, 32% (or about one in every three) of the publications we examined contained DAS in 2022. 

Interestingly, when we specifically looked at publications resulting from collaborations involving multiple income groups on an international scale, we observed a higher proportion containing DAS, which stood at 39% in 2022. This trend of a higher presence of DAS in such collaborative publications has been consistent in previous years.

Looking at these figures on a global scale, the proportion of Data Availability Statements vary only slightly between intra-country collaborations and international collaborations. 

Several factors could have potentially contributed to the observation. First, international projects usually require comprehensive research data management and sharing plans. Researchers from institutions with strong policies on data management influence the practices in collaborative work. This tends to push research collaborators towards the adoption of best practices in research, including data sharing norms such as DAS in research publications. Second, international collaborations sometimes involve the integration of data from different sources and jurisdictions. To navigate a complex landscape of funding and ethical requirements regarding data usage and sharing often necessitates clear data availability statements. 

Collaborations and DAS disparities for low- and high-income groups

When the dataset is further partitioned into different income groups, we observe different levels of engagement in cross-institution research collaborations between the high- and low-income countries. 

We examined approximately 1.5 million publications with at least one author from a  high-income country group in 2022. Among which, one-third were the output of a single institution, and two-thirds were the output of national or international collaborations (Table 2). In comparison, publications with at least one author from the low-income country group published substantially less, but with a much higher rate of cross-institution collaboration, especially international collaboration. This likely reflects a stronger inclination for researchers in low-income countries to engage in collaborative efforts and seek international partnerships. There also tends to be a global nature of research efforts in low-income countries. This may stem from the need to address global challenges that disproportionately affect these regions, such as infectious diseases or the impact of climate change (Aksnes & Sivertsen, 2023).

There are several potential discussion points stemming from these findings. Has the dependency on international resources and collaborations brought along an increased emphasis on open science and DAS, possibly as a condition of international funding and partnerships when it comes to research from lower-income regions? Do varying incentive structures account for differences in the rate of increase in DAS between national and international collaborations? What influence does policy and funding sources have, particularly in projects involving low-income countries? Finally, what part do local research priorities have to play within these regions? Perhaps the focus on international collaboration in low-income countries is driven by the need to address pressing local issues that have global implications, thus requiring a broader data-sharing approach. Or perhaps they are simply leading for other reasons.

Figure 2 shows that the proportion of publications containing DAS with no outside collaboration increases from 3% in 2017 to 24% in 2022. When we look at those from low-income countries, the proportion of publications containing DAS increased from 15% in 2017 to 54% in 2022. The notable increase in the proportion of publications containing DAS for both high and low-income countries is indicative of a growing commitment to data transparency across both regions. The growth is more pronounced however within low-income countries. This could be driven by various factors such as the increased emphasis on open science practices or requirements set by funding bodies.

On examining similar data for publications that have national collaboration, i.e. those publications that have additional authors outside the institution but within the same country, we reveal some telling contrasts between research from high-income regions and low-income regions. Despite fewer national collaborations, Low-income countries have shown a substantial increase in publications with DAS, ranging from 28% in 2017 to 66% in 2022 (Figure 3). This marked increase indicates a robust movement towards open science, again possibly encouraged by funder requirements or international norms. high income countries, although displaying an increase in DAS prevalence, present a slower rate of adoption – with a noticeable increase only occurring after 2020. This suggests that while there is a general trend towards data sharing, mechanisms and incentives might differ from those in low-income countries.

The increase in DAS in high-income countries (from 6% in 2017 to 38% in 2022) is consistent with national trends again reflecting a more gradual adoption of data sharing practices (Figure 4). In contrast, the growth in DAS for low-income countries (from 19% in 2017 to 55% in 2022) is notable, perhaps influenced by international standards and policies from collaborative bodies, which often require open data practices.

It is also important to note that, for the low-income country group, DAS practices are more frequently observed among publications with national collaboration (66%) than those with international collaboration (55%). Such a pattern does not exist for the high-income country group. But why? Are national research data sharing policies and regulation ascending the agenda? Does the type of research conducted in national collaboration entail stronger DAS practices?

With these questions, we zoom into Ethiopia as an example to explore the underlying funding and discipline focuses behind the country’s research output and whether they exhibit different DAS practices.

The Case of Ethiopia

Ethiopia has seen significant growth in research activity and outputs in recent years. At the same time, it has demonstrated rapid improvement in DAS practices. 

Figure 5 demonstrates how Ethiopia has emerged as the leading country in upholding research integrity within the lower-income group through the provision of DAS within its research output. Such practices not only distinguish Ethiopia in the context of lower-income nations but also demonstrate a level of best practice that out-competes with higher-income countries. This observation is complemented by Ethiopia’s stronghold in other Trust Markers (Figure 6).

Between 2017 and 2022, Ethiopia’s research output has increased more than three fold, from approximately 3000 publications to more than 11,000 publications (Figure 7). Concurrently, the % of publications with DAS increased from approximately 20% to 65%.

The overall growth in Ethiopia’s DAS practices coincides with its research focus in the area of Health (Habtewold et al, 2022). Between 2019-2022, of Ethiopia’s publications classified with an SDG, 61% are related to SDG3 Good Health and Well-being. This is substantially higher than the global distribution of SDG research, where 43% of publications with SDG classifications are related to SDG3 for the same period. This aligns with the general pattern we observed in Dimension’s research integrity database, where SDG3 stands out in terms of trust marker performance.

Having established that SDG3 dominates Ethiopia’s research landscape, a deeper dive into the data further reinforces the country’s research priorities. When categorizing publications by Field of Research (FoR), specifically output tagged as a national collaboration or a single institutional publication, it becomes evident that Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, together with Health Sciences, stand out as the predominant fields. These two Fields of Research represent 57% of Ethiopia’s independent research efforts throughout the same timeframe (Table 3).  In contrast, when examining the FoR breakdown globally, the predominant areas of research are Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (23%) and Engineering (17%). This comparison further demonstrates the unique emphasis on health-related research within Ethiopia.

The subset of Ethiopian publications with national collaboration leads in DAS practices, followed by those with no cross-institution collaboration, and then publications with international collaboration. This suggests that a primary driver of change in DAS practices stemmed internally from Ethiopia as a country. One example is the country’s National Data Management Center for Health (NDMC), which serves as the hub to store, process, manage, and synthesize health-related research data for decision making by the Federal Ministry of Health. It is also important to consider the suggestion that Ethiopia’s research is primarily led by dedicated research institutes which maintain a national remit and are generally for the purpose of informing national policy.

In talking with Leslie McIntosh, VP Research Integrity, Digital Science, we have gained further insights. “Ethiopian researchers embody the spirit of open science that the country has wholeheartedly embraced”, says McIntosh. “When their government enacted open access mandates in 2019, requiring publicly-funded research to be freely shared, Ethiopia’s universities and libraries adapted quickly to comply. Now we see the fruits of that policy in action – with research data more clearly reported and made widely available to all. Ethiopia sets an example for putting open science policy into practice, building capacity and trust in its research through commitment to transparency and accessibility.”

Conclusion

An examination of DAS and other Trust Marker data in the Digital Science database suggests that research collaboration at various levels, nationally and internationally,  encourages exemplary DAS practices. Significant improvements in research transparency, accessibility, and reproducibility are notable outcomes when individual researchers, institutions, and a nation work collaboratively to establish clear data management plans, guidelines, and sharing protocols. We note that while higher income countries demonstrate a steady improvement in DAS rates over time, the growth trajectory lags behind that of low-income regions. Income level alone does not fully determine integrity of research practices. Strategic policies, collaborative models and research agendas catering to local priorities and issues all play a part. We see the pivotal role of national agendas in facilitating DAS, as evidenced by the case of Ethiopia. A cohesive national strategy and commitment to data openness can significantly influence the success of research data management initiatives that benefit both the research community and society as a whole. 

As the open science movement continues to gain momentum, tracking how these dynamics evolve across different regions will provide crucial insights into how a shared commitment to accessibility and best research practices can benefit scientific progress universally.   

There is a keen anticipation for increased interaction with countries like Ethiopia and other African nations, acknowledging their crucial role in advancing the global progression of open science. As McIntosh noted, “I look forward to more interaction with Ethiopia and other African nations in the future to put open science policy into practice.”

References

[1] Aksnes, Dag W. and Sivertsen, Gunnar. “Global trends in international research collaboration, 1980-2021①” Journal of Data and Information Science, vol.8, no.2, 2023, pp.26-42. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2023-0015

[2] Tesfa Dejenie Habtewold, Nigussie Tadesse Sharew, Aklilu Endalamaw, Henok Mulugeta, Getenet Dessie, Nigus G. Asefa, Getachew Mulu Kassa, Wubet Alebachew Bayih, Mulugeta Molla Birhanu, Balewgize Sileshi Tegegne, Andreas A. Teferra, Abera Kenay Tura, Sisay Mulugeta Alemu “Mapping publication outputs, collaboration networks, research hotspots, and most cited articles in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of medicine and health sciences in Ethiopia: analyses of 20 years of scientific data”. medRxiv 2022.02.24.22271416; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.24.22271416

[3] Assessing the needs of the research system in Ethiopia – GOV.UK

Further reading on using Dimensions data to explore research collaborations across income regions:

Porter, Simon J., and Daniel W. Hook. “Connecting Scientometrics: Dimensions as a route to broadening context for analyses.” Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 7 (2022): 835139. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2112.08472

The post Navigating trust in academic research: The rise of data availability statements – part II appeared first on Digital Science.

Summary

In this blog we present findings from a bibliometric evaluation of scientific publications that include a contribution from the top ten pharmaceutical companies in the Global North and Global South, which have been indexed in Digital Science’s Dimensions database in the past five years (2018 to 2022). The study maps aspects of the landscape in this area exploring differences in pharmaceutical research practices from different perspectives including funding and collaboration, pharmaceutical research and its association with the SDGs, the impact of the cost of medicines developed by pharma and their accessibility in distinct geographic regions. The results show significant gaps between the two global areas, but also some ways where these gaps are now closing.

Contents

• Introduction
  • The new geography of the pharmaceutical industry
  • The pharmaceutical industry’s commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• Methodology
• Analysis
  • Global North and Global South
  • Pharmaceutical funding and collaboration with ‘access to medicine’ research publications
  • Pharma funding and collaboration associated with the UN Sustainable Development Goals
  • Funding Sources-Pharmaceutical Partnerships
• Conclusion
• References

Introduction

Access to essential medicines is a serious global concern, regardless of the income level of a country. Medicines are not affordable for those who need them in many low- and middle-income countries (the Global South), and many new medicines are too expensive even for the health systems of middle- and high-income countries (the Global North)^[2].

Staggeringly, an estimated two billion people worldwide still lack access to essential medicines and vaccines that could prevent and treat diseases, relieve suffering, improve quality of life and reduce deaths,^[3] and the majority of these people are living in global south countries. This is a clear example of fragmentation in our society – a disconnect between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’, where science and medicine could save lives but are unable to overcome the barriers in their way.

Pharmaceutical companies are recognised as being uniquely positioned to remedy this and improve people’s lives by producing innovative and affordable medicines^[4]. However, their products have generally been developed to target more lucrative markets and, as a result, are often poorly matched with the needs of global south countries.

Achieving equitable access to medicines is a key component in the UN’s Sustainable Development Agenda. In particular, one of the targets of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG3) – ‘Good Health and wellbeing’ – is to achieve Universal Health Coverage (UHC) and is a critical driver to realising health equity. Equitable access and resilient health systems are the basis for UHC, by enabling availability, affordability, and acceptability to ensure that people can get the right medicines of the right quality at the right price and at the right place^[5].

Since 2006 the UN’s Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) has provided support and assistance to advance local pharmaceutical production in developing countries where its support contributes effectively to strengthening the health security of the global south countries and as a follow on to attaining SDG3, addressing the need for “access to safe, effective, quality, and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all”^[6]. However, there remain barriers for many people in the world who have difficulty accessing the healthcare they need for multiple reasons, including:

Even for diseases that affect both the Global North and the Global South alike, research often focuses on products that are best suited for use in the Global North. For example, a lot of pharmaceutical research has been conducted on complex AIDS drugs that are more useful in global north countries, but too expensive and difficult to deliver to much of the population in global south countries.^[9] The lower income countries take the bulk of the global disease burden, yet essential healthcare products are often unaffordable or unavailable to them.

Achieving greater access for the global south countries who have less access to the most essential of medicines requires pharmaceutical companies to give them a place in their business operations. The 2022 ‘Access to Medicine Index’^[10] evaluates and compares 20 of the world’s leading research-based pharmaceutical companies according to their efforts to improve access to medicine. Data analysed for the 2022 Index found that more companies had stepped up their access efforts – including some companies that were previously less likely to take action.^[11] The data relates to 83 diseases, conditions and pathogens that disproportionately impact people living in the 108 global south countries in scope of the Index, where better access to medicine is most urgently needed. Most recently, Johnston & Johnston has agreed to allow generic versions of the drug bedaquiline in dozens (96) of lower income countries to be made available. It is implementing this by providing the Global Drug Facility (GDF)^[12] with licences enabling the organisation to procure and supply generic forms of the drug countries the organisation supplies.^[13]

The ability to contribute to health equity and, more specifically, facilitate access-to-medicine, has increasingly become a priority for the pharmaceutical industry. However, while steps are being taken to improve access to their products in the global south, many plans and strategies still overlook the poorest countries.

The new geography of the pharmaceutical industry

The geographic concentration of the pharmaceutical industry currently sits in those countries with the fastest growing economies. This concentration is gradually starting to shift and more and more we are seeing that pharmaceutical production in developing countries is increasing. For instance, India is now a more prominent and developing player in the global pharmaceutical industry and their domestic pharmaceutical market’s growth outpaced that of the overall economy by 2-3% a year^[14]. According to China Briefing, the Chinese pharmaceutical market has grown in the past few years, with a 200% increase in market capitalisation between 2016 and 2020.^[15] Thus, although the US pharmaceutical industry still dominates the global market, accounting for roughly 50% of global pharmaceutical sales revenue, we are seeing shifting patterns in the geography of the pharmaceutical industry.

The research-based pharmaceutical industry is also entering a new era in medicines development^[16] and there is fast growth in the market and research environment in emerging economies such as Brazil, China and India, leading to a gradual migration of economic and research activities from Europe to these markets^[17]. That said, of the 40 vaccine manufacturers in 14 nations that are part of The Developing Countries Vaccine Manufacturers Network, currently just one is African: the Biovac Institute based in Cape Town, South Africa, which delivers over 25 million doses of vaccines each year for illnesses such as measles, polio and tuberculosis.^[18]

Consequently there is still a heavy reliance on external sources and the export of medicines to African nations. However, within the next two decades, the African Union member states are aiming for 60% of Africa’s routinely used vaccines to be manufactured on the continent.^[19]  With roughly half the population of Africa lacking regular access to the most essential medicines, according to the WHO,^[20] attempts to reduce this has seen a growing number of healthcare practitioners beginning to build the pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity on the African continent.

Crossing the continents, Bangladesh’s pharmaceutical industry is unique in the Global South. Driven by active government policies, output has grown a thousand times since 1982, to US$2 billion (around 1% of gross domestic product), making it the biggest white collar employer in the country. The industry supplies pharmaceuticals to almost the entire domestic market and more than 100 other countries including the United States.^[21]

The pharmaceutical industry’s commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The value of translating scientific evidence into action in support of the SDGs and their attainment is of paramount importance. The pharmaceutical industry’s participation in accelerating achievement of the SDGs requires that its roadmap for research and development includes demonstrating its ability to tackle diseases in both global south and global north countries. 

The need to have access to safe and effective essential medicines is so important that it has been designated a basic human right by the World Health Organization.^[22] This importance has been given further weight by its inclusion in the UN’s Sustainable Development Agenda.

Access to medicine is essential for ending epidemics and reducing the mortality in non-communicable diseases and is one of the targets of Sustainable Development Goal 3 – Good Health and well-being (SDG3.4). Of course, living healthy lives is what most people would expect, or at the very least hope for, in the 21st century. However, for millions, this remains an aspiration. The mission of SDG3 is to change this and ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for people of all ages, and the pharmaceutical industry is making inroads in its contribution to SDG3 and beyond.

For example, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) expresses a long-term commitment to improving access to health care across the world. Since 2010, it has capped the prices of patented medicines and vaccines in the “least developed countries” at 25% of those in the EU5 (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK) as long as manufacturing costs are covered^[23]. 

We also examine how the UN SDGs influence the pharmaceutical industry to do more good than changing and saving lives. So although the pharmaceutical industry’s primary impact is in SDG3, other Goals such as SDG12 Responsible Consumption and Production and SDG6 Clean Water and Sanitation are also influential.

For example, a number of leading pharmaceutical companies now demonstrate ‘responsible production’ by, for example, reducing animal testing and hazardous chemical use (Bayer), recycling water in the manufacturing process (GSK), or education on vaccination for the community (Pfizer), along with wastewater management, water recycling, and the use of green chemistry aimed to address environmental issues. The above examples focus on targets set out in SDG12 and SDG6.

Methodology

We extracted the top ten pharmaceutical companies by income using GRID IDs (parent GRID), whilst extracting the (child GRID) ID for each company (the top pharmaceutical companies operate worldwide and have subsidiaries across the globe) and this allowed us to split them into those operating in global north countries and those operating in global south countries depending on operation bases, ie, where top ten pharmaceutical companies based in the Global North have operations carrying out pharmaceutical research and development in the Global South. Dimensions allows us to do this using Google Big Query (GBQ) bringing together World Bank data for the Global North and Global South distinction, and the research output from Dimensions, to perform the analyses.  

Next, a simple boolean search string was created: “access medicine”~3 and, along with our search string of top ten pharmaceutical companies, Dimensions retrieved the relevant research outputs for pharmaceutical companies in global north and in global south countries.

Using the set of search results we filtered the research output by Global South (low and lower-middle income countries) and Global North (high and upper-middle income countries).

Analysis

Global North and Global South

In this section we analysed the relevant research that involves the top ten pharmaceutical companies and their contribution to research on ‘access to medicine’ in the Global North and in the Global South.

To get an initial sense of the data, we first analysed ‘access to medicine’ research publications featuring top ten pharmaceutical companies, using Dimensions. This enabled us to ascertain the geographical distribution of the pharmaceutical companies’ participation in this domain (see Figure 1) in global north and global south countries.

Figure 1 details the total volume of research publications associated with ‘access to medicine’ research by country income level..  Of the total volume (3,165 publications), 109 (3.4%) include a contribution from the pharmaceutical industry. 1,473 publications from the dataset did not have the required data to determine country-income group (46%).

Pharmaceutical funding and collaboration with ‘access to medicine’ research publications

Figure 2 outlines the volume of papers across global north and global south countries over time.  We note that a mixed pattern emerges. We also note that numbers are small and might expect this for two reasons.  Firstly, access to medicine research is a particularly niche area of research, and secondly, historically, it has not been common for the pharmaceutical industry to collaborate on academic research. But this is changing with links between academia and the pharmaceutical industry increasing both as funding partners or as collaborators, or both.^[24] The data here would confirm this.  What is apparent is that pharmaceutical companies predominantly collaborate with researchers and fund more research in the high income countries of the Global North. Although there is evidence of pharmaceutical companies funding  and collaborating with research in the global south, it is to a much lesser extent. Figure 3 reveals that collaboration in conjunction with funding by pharma for research associated with ‘access to medicine’ is evident in 2022 for the first time. It would be interesting to see whether this is the starting point for the pharmaceutical industry’s engagement and collaboration with academic researchers in the Global South going forward.

The top ten pharmaceutical industry’s contribution to ‘access to medicine’ relevant research in Global North and Global South countries is displayed in Figure 3 above detailing the extent to which collaboration and funding in this area is focused in the two regions over an eight year period.  Immediately apparent is the stronger commitment to the higher income countries, where, in particular, the pharmaceutical industry’s collaborations with academic research is most pronounced. Funding and/or collaborating with research in the Global South shows data only across three years.

Pharma funding and collaboration associated with the UN Sustainable Development Goals

Figures 4a and 4b above assess the volume of research outputs that are associated with the UN’s SDGs, either funded or in collaboration with, or both, the pharmaceutical industry. Unsurprisingly, the research focus is predominantly with SDG3 – Good health and well-being, however the data would suggest that there are potentially starting to be signs of their focus extending to SDG12 Responsible Production and Consumption (eg, supply chains) and SDG6 Clean Water and Sanitation (eg, management of wastewater). With reference to SDG6, advances in wastewater treatment processes are being made in the industry to prevent the discharge of harmful substances into water resources and the environment. In fact  AstraZeneca has made an 18.7% reduction in water use since 2015 and 100% reduction of active pharmaceutical ingredients discharges from AstraZeneca sites. 92% of discharges from direct suppliers were in compliance with SDG6 target 6.3.^[25] With respect to SDG12 again, AstraZeneca averted 2,129 tonnes of waste in 2022 alone by selling it as a by-product.

The geographical distribution of the top ten pharmaceutical industry’s participation in research associated with ‘access to medicine’ research was examined using a collaborative network visualisation tool (see Figure 5 above), VOSviewer. The tool allows us to see, in this instance, countries participating in research focused on ‘access to medicine’, the collaborative networks between those countries, and where pharmaceutical companies concentrate their collaborations. Understanding geographic patterns can also help to identify potential gaps and highlight areas where more collaborative effort might be valuable. It can also indicate regions where the pharmaceutical industry is more proactive in supporting research on access to medicines.

Funding Sources-Pharmaceutical Partnerships

We present data in Figure 6 to provide an understanding of the financial and/or collaborative support from the pharmaceutical industry behind research focused on ‘access to medicine’ in different sectors. Analysis of the dataset using Dimensions, allowed us to determine the proportion of research funded by pharmaceutical companies, alongside other sources, including government agencies, foundations, and nonprofit organisations. The analysis provides an indication (despite small numbers^[26]) of the extent of the pharmaceutical industry’s financial commitment to ‘access to medicine’ research in the Global North and Global South, and helps to evaluate the diversity of pharmaceutical funding of research in this area.

Conclusion

Exploring a niche area of research as we have done here with our focus on ‘access to medicine’, means that the data retrieved will be small in number, and made smaller by the introduction of a filter which is possible using Dimensions which in this case is the top ten pharmaceutical companies. Lower numbers in an analysis naturally brings with it a number of caveats, and one in particular, the robustness of the data and subsequent outcomes.

Despite this, it is still worthwhile and beneficial to explore the research from this perspective and has provided some useful insights. Insights such as the industries that the pharmaceutical industry supports in this niche area and where we see that it is not just in healthcare but also in education, government, not for profits, etc that science is funded for the development of new pharmaceutical products aimed at transforming lives.

Further, the geography of the pharmaceutical industry’s participation in this area of research indicates perhaps the start of a growing commitment to its involvement in addressing the access to medicine in all areas in the world and evidence of collaboration across the Global North and Global South, however small, shows a level of responsibility being taken by the industry.

Finally, on a general note, a survey by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry in 2022 found that ‘industry-academic links were at an all time high and identified several trends pointing to the continued support of the pharmaceutical industry for students training and research all across the UK and worldwide’.^[27]

References

^[1] https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/responsibility/global-health-and-health-security/improving-access-to-healthcare/

^[2] Wirtz VJ, Hogerzeil HV, Gray AL, Bigdeli M, de Joncheere CP, Ewen MA et al. Essential medicines for universal health coverage. Lancet. 2017;389(10067):403–76

^[3] https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/essential-medicines/fair-price/chapter-medicines.pdf?sfvrsn=adcffc8f_4&download=true

^[4] https://unglobalcompact.org/library/1011

^[5] https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/responsibility/global-health-and-health-security/improving-access-to-healthcare/

^[6] https://www.unido.org/our-focus-advancing-economic-competitiveness-investing-technology-and-innovation-competitiveness-business-environment-and-upgrading/pharmaceutical-production-developing-countries

^[7] https://www.astellas.com/en/sustainability/access-to-medicines

^[8] Pecoul, Bernard et al. 1999. “Access to Essential Drugs in Poor Countries: A Lost Battle?” Journal of the American Medical Association. January 27, 281:4, pp. 361–67

^[9] https://www2.hawaii.edu/~noy/362texts/pharma.pdf

^[10] https://accesstomedicinefoundation.org/medialibrary/2022_access-to-medicine-index-1669982470.pdf

^[11] https://accesstomedicinefoundation.org/medialibrary/2022_access-to-medicine-index-1669982470.pdf

^[12] https://www.stoptb.org/facilitate-access-to-tb-drugs-diagnostics/global-drug-facility-gdf

^[13] https://www.science.org/content/article/major-drug-company-bends-battle-over-access-key-tb-treatment?utm_source=Nature+Briefing%3A+Translational+Research&utm_campaign=89b7cf8e10-briefing-tr-20230726&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_872afe2a9a-89b7cf8e10-47896968

^[14] https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/indias-economic-ambitions-pharmaceutical-industry

^[15] https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-booming-biopharmaceuticals-market-innovation-investment-opportunities/

^[16] https://www.efpia.eu/media/637143/the-pharmaceutical-industry-in-figures-2022.pdf

^[17] https://aijourn.com/press_release/pharmaceutical-glass-packaging-global-market-report-2023-growth-of-pharmaceutical-industry-in-emerging-economies-drives-sector-researchandmarkets-com/

^[18] https://unctad.org/news/covid-19-heightens-need-pharmaceutical-production-poor-countries

^[19] Saied, AbdulRahman A.a,b,*. Africa is going to develop their own health capabilities for future challenges – Correspondence. International Journal of Surgery 99():p 106585, March 2022. | DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106585

^[20] https://www.who.int/news/item/13-12-2017-world-bank-and-who-half-the-world-lacks-access-to-essential-health-services-100-million-still-pushed-into-extreme-poverty-because-of-health-expenses

^[21] https://www.un.org/ldcportal/content/what-ldc-graduation-will-mean-bangladesh%E2%80%99s-drugs-industry

^[22] https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/255355/9789241512442-eng.pdf

^[23] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6316355/

^[24] https://www.abpi.org.uk/media/news/2022/september/new-survey-shows-collaboration-between-pharmaceutical-industry-and-uk-academia-is-growing/#:~:text=This%20year’s%20survey%20shows%20that,3%2Dfold%20increase%20since%202015.

^[25] https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/dam/az/Sustainability/2023/pdf/Sustainability_Report_2022.pdf

^[26] The small numbers in part might be the result of the pharmaceutical industry being less eager to publish their funded research in this area, though the topic of the search for “access to medicine’ is less ‘confidential’ in comparison to research published on a potentially new pharmaceutical ingredients etc.

^[27] https://www.abpi.org.uk/facts-figures-and-industry-data/industry-and-academia-links-survey-2022/

The post A tale of two pharmas – Global North and Global South appeared first on Digital Science.

In this blog series, we venture into the realms of research transparency, focusing first on the rise of Data Availability Statements. We explore what research powerhouses are leading the charge in providing these critical transparency markers and the underlying trends behind this data. Dive in as we uncover the influences and paradoxes of the academic trust landscape.

Introduction

In the realm of academic communication, research integrity has emerged as a pivotal concern in recent years. It is a keystone principle that spans all disciplines, all cultures, and all geo-political divides. The good practices around data availability, ethical declarations, funder acknowledgement, detailed author contributions, and conflict of interest disclosures are not mere administrative tasks; they serve as guiding beacons, offering reassurance that research is conducted with honesty and transparency. We call these Trust Markers. The trust markers enable researchers to establish and nurture a strong foundation of trust with the public, industry, and funders. 

Welcome to the first part of our blog series, “Navigating Trust in Research”. Inspired by recommendations from the Hong Kong Principles for assessing research (Moher et al), and the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, we embark on a journey into the realm of research integrity using Trust Marker data from Digital Science’s Dimensions database. We explore an abundant resource of insights offering the potential to reshape our perspectives on scholarly contributions, fortify trust in today’s research landscape, and harness this data to recognise, reward and encourage best practice on a global scale. 

Our inaugural instalment focuses on what can be regarded as the most critical component of a research output: the underlying data. Our analysis explores the growth in Data Availability Statements (DAS) and the trends that underscore commendable research practices with regard to data availability and transparency. In an era that places a premium on trust and ethical research, DAS emerge as pillars of credibility. They support the path to open science, equipping scholars, policymakers and stakeholders with the tools to challenge or support findings, scrutinise and validate methodologies – ultimately strengthening the underlying foundations of sharing knowledge.

When researchers choose to openly share their methodologies and data, they make a strong statement about their commitment to transparency and accountability. This action communicates to the public that they welcome scrutiny and have confidence in the thoroughness and ethical foundations of their work. Such openness can help to build public trust and establish researchers as dependable contributors to the knowledge pool – a role that is incredibly valuable in our current era of misinformation.

Dimensions Research Integrity Data

Trust Markers (i.e. explicit statements on a paper such as funding acknowledgement, data availability, conflict of interest statements, author contributions, and ethical approval) are the hallmarks of transparent and reproducible scientific research. The Dimensions Research Integrity (DRI) dataset uses AI models to recognize these Trust Markers in scientific publications. The resulting dataset provides information on the presence or absence of the Trust Markers across 33 million research articles, conference proceedings, books, chapters, and preprints from 2010. This data provides invaluable insights into authorship, reproducibility and transparency. 

Methodology 

In conducting this analysis, we rely on Digital Science’s Dimensions database and the Dimensions Research Integrity dataset. We use the Dimensions on Google BigQuery provision to extract data on research output, underlying funder data and associated countries using the organisation associated with each author. Additional country data from the Google BigQuery World Bank dataset is also integrated for further analysis. Research output for this study excludes books, chapters and monographs. 

To ensure focused analysis, our data has been limited to research outputs from 2017 to 2022 and grouped at the country level. After ranking countries by the quantity of research output, those cumulatively responsible for the top 70% of research output over this period have been selected as the underlying dataset. 

The Dimensions Research Integrity (DRI) data has been used to assess the proportion of Trust Markers against the research output. The DRI data accounts for 68% of the extracted research output for the timeframe i.e. we had 68% coverage of DRI data against our data extraction of research output from 2017-2022. Publications excluded from the DRI dataset have been omitted from the analysis.

For the purpose of this blog, we focus on the provision of DAS and zoom into a subset of data on the quality of the statement (e.g., whether repository data was provided and/or the URL location of the repository). 

This allows us to gain valuable insights into the prevalence and quality of DAS, an essential aspect of research integrity and transparency.

Importance of the Data Availability Statement (DAS)

A Data Availability Statement (DAS) is a crucial component of a scientific article, highlighting the accessibility of the research data. A DAS should advise how the reported data supporting the study’s findings can be accessed. 

Though many publishers and funders offer guidance on the composition of a DAS based on their distinct policies, not all make it a compulsory requirement. Incorporating a DAS can however enhance the credibility and validity of research findings by bolstering the transparency and quality of the study behind the publication. Additionally, it elevates the quality of the publication and enhances the potential for the associated data to be cited and even built upon, helping research studies become reproducible, and minimising unnecessary repetition. This is of particular importance with regard to capacity-building efforts. Researchers from economically emergent countries or marginalised communities can access existing datasets, which reduces the need for duplicative data collection, promoting cost-effective research. The necessity of a DAS became acutely evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, as “just-in-time” data became paramount, catalysing swift global research collaborations through immediate access to trustworthy and verifiable datasets.

A DAS can serve another useful role: detailing the rationale for any restrictions on data accessibility, such as the need to safeguard personal information. 

Findings

The 14 countries selected for the analysis (the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, Brazil, Italy, Indonesia, Canada, France, Spain, and Australia) roughly account for 70% of the world’s research output from 2017 to 2022, according to Dimensions data. This implies that the amalgamated trend we observe from the 14 countries would ideally provide a good representation of the megatrend in DAS practices. These research superpowers will also have profound influences in shaping and driving the DAS practices around the world.

The proportion of publications containing DAS grew phenomenally over the past five years (Figure 1). In 2017, only about one in every 25 publications contained a data availability statement. In 2022, a data availability statement is found in nearly one out of every three publications, with the most notable growth in DAS taking place in the last three years.

Taking a closer look at the selected countries, Australia, the UK and Canada had been consistently outperforming the 30% DAS average (Figure 2). Japan had been closely resembling the average DAS baseline, while India and Russia had been moving up along a ‘catch-up’ curve. China had a low DAS starting point of 3% in 2017 but it had been rising quickly and became the country with the highest proportion of publications containing DAS among the benchmarking group in 2022. The DAS trust marker of the US, in comparison, was at a higher-than-average point in 2017, but gradually fell below the average DAS baseline as other countries improved at a faster pace.

Field(s) of research, data sharing requirements imposed by funding agencies, and journal-specific publishing guidelines are known factors influencing DAS practices. If we look specifically at the metadata on funders, the proportion of publications containing DAS is higher for those with known funders (i.e. those whose underlying funder can be determined) as compared with those without (Figure 3). The gap has widened since 2020, corresponding with an increasing call in recent years to proactively publish and share data generated from publicly funded research. The EU Open Data Directive (formerly Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive), for example, came into force in 2019 and requires valuable public data to be re-usable, including those generated from research-performing organisations and research funding agencies.

At the country level, the availability of funder information is associated with differential impacts on DAS practices (Figure 4). In countries such as Indonesia, Russia, and Brazil, the proportion of publications containing DAS is substantially higher for those with known funders (i.e. 30-40% higher than those without known funders). It should be noted, however, that for countries such as Indonesia, publications with known funders represent a very small proportion of the national research output (i.e. 2% in the case of Indonesia); Trust Markers such as DAS are absent from the vast majority of the country’s research output.

Within the country benchmarking group, China showed the smallest difference in DAS practices between those with and without known funders.

Drilling down to the DAS sub-categories, we could see that, as recently as 2022, most publications (63%) containing a DAS indicated that data is available only upon request (Figure 5). Only 18% pointed to online repositories. The rest declared that data is available within the paper (8%), in the supplementary file (8%), or not publicly available (3%). This resonates with Couture et al.’s study in 2018, which reported unsatisfactory data recovery success under a particular funder-imposed requirement of public availability. 

This is worth further reflection as DAS practices should not be conceived as a box-ticking exercise. Knowing about data repositories commonly used in different fields could help researchers to improve DAS practices and make research data more transparent and discoverable.

Conclusion

Establishing evidence that research has undergone thorough scrutiny holds immense potential for bolstering research reputation and assuring legitimacy to external parties. As we strive for a more reliable and credible academic landscape, these Trust Markers become indispensable in establishing evidence of quality, safeguarding the integrity of research, and promoting a culture of transparency and accountability. When we consider the pivotal role that elevated research integrity standards now play, the prospect of incorporating such data into benchmarking frameworks or research evaluation processes becomes even more compelling. In an era marked by a surge in misinformation, coupled with the evolving challenges and pressures researchers face while striving to make meaningful scholarly contributions, quality matters.

In our next instalment, we will delve further into the factors that can influence the quality and content and the significance of a DAS. Have countries within emerging research economies also seen a growth in DAS practices? Are they associated with specific funding sources or collaboration patterns? We will explore the underlying metadata behind these publications. Furthermore we will look at how good practice in terms of data availability and transparency might influence citation patterns over time. 

Join us as we embark on our exploration into best practice, shedding light on a research landscape rooted in trust, collaboration, and a relentless pursuit of excellence.

Note: The authors have made the data associated with their post freely available. It can be found on Figshare here: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24018009

The post Navigating trust in academic research: The rise of data availability statements – part 1 appeared first on Digital Science.

Climate change is one of the biggest threats to health.”

<strong>Dr Beth Thompson</strong>

Interim Director of Strategy, Wellcome Trust (7 February 2023)

This blog addresses the impact of climate change on infectious diseases, in particular infectious diseases with the potential to transmit from animals to humans, also known as zoonotic diseases. To set the scene for this, we first consider the wider context of how global warming has far-reaching consequences for humans and the planet. The global changes that we are currently experiencing have never happened before, with climate change representing one of the principal environmental and health challenges. We use Dimensions to explore published research, research funding, policy documents and citation data. To help us perform a deeper analysis of the data, we access the Dimensions data through its Google BigQuery (GBQ) provision. This allows us to integrate data from Dimensions with one of the  publicly available World Bank datasets on GBQ.  

We also look at the research in conjunction with two United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – SDG3 Good Health and Well-being and SDG13 Climate Action – and assess how they add to the narrative. Many of the health impacts associated with climate change are a particular threat to the poorest people in low- and middle-income countries where the burden of climate sensitive diseases is the greatest. This also suggests that the impact in these regions, based on the UN SDGs, may reach beyond climate (SDG13) and health (SDG3) to affect those who live in extreme poverty (SDG1) and/or those who experience food insecurity (SDG2).

“The climate crisis is a health crisis”

Introduction

1. Climate change and zoonotic diseases

Climate change has far-reaching implications for human health in the 21st century, with significant increases in temperature extremes, heavy precipitation, and severe droughts.¹ It directly impacts health through long-term changes in rainfall and temperature, climatic extremes (heatwaves, hurricanes, and flash floods), air quality, sea-level rise in low-land coastal regions, and many different influences on food production systems and water resources.²

In terms of human health, climate change has an important impact on the transmission of vector-borne diseases (human illnesses caused by parasites), in particular zoonotic infectious diseases (infections transmitted from animal to humans by the bite of infected arthropod species, such as mosquitoes and bats), and has a particular relevance due to the most recent COVID-19 and Zika virus outbreaks. Arthropods are of major significance due to their abundance, adaptability, and coevolution to different kinds of pathogens.³ 

Zoonotic infectious diseases are a global threat because they can become pandemics, as we have seen in the case of COVID-19, and are currently considered one of the most important threats for public health globally. The COVID pathogen spread worldwide, recording 255,324,963 cases with 5,127,696 deaths as of November 2021.⁴

One reason for this turnaround could be related to the widespread adoption of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and in particular SDG6, which sets out to “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”.⁹ The achievement of this Goal, even if partially, would greatly benefit people and the planet, given the importance of clean water for socio-economic development and quality of life, including health and environmental protection. SDG6 considers improvement of water quality by reducing by half the amount of wastewater that is not treated by 2030.

The changes in climatic conditions have forced many pathogens and vectors to develop adaptation mechanisms. For example, in the case of African Ebola, climate change is a factor in the rise in cases over the past two decades, with bats and other animal hosts of the virus being driven into new areas when temperatures change, potentially bringing them into closer contact with humans.  

Examples highlighting how the acceleration of zoonotic pathogens is attributable to changes in climate and ecology due to human impact are common. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), almost six out of every 10 infectious diseases can be spread from animals to humans; three out of every four emerging infectious diseases in humans originate from animals.⁵ Zoonotic diseases, such as those spread by mosquitoes and other related vectors, have increased in recent years. This is because the rise in global temperatures has created favourable conditions for breeding specific pathogens, especially in poorly developed countries predominantly in the Global South.⁶ Further, climate change is causing people’s general health to deteriorate, making it easier for zoonotic infections to spread, as seen with the Zika and dengue viruses.⁷

The changes in climatic conditions have forced pathogens and vectors to develop adaptation mechanisms. Such development has resulted in these diseases becoming resistant to conventional treatments due to their augmented resilience and survival techniques, thus further favouring the spread of infection.

2. Exploring links between climate change and zoonotic diseases as evidenced by mentions in policy documents

Developments in policy are generally rooted in academic research. Applying research to policy relevant questions is increasingly important to address potential problems and can often identify what has been successful or not successful elsewhere. Citations to the research that underpins policy documents is known to be an important (proxy) indicator of the quality of the research carried out. Awareness and the course of action taken by governments, NGOs and other health-focused institutions is evident by their activity in this area. For example, in the UK the government has recently allocated £200 million to fight zoonotic diseases.⁹ Actions that are taken relevant to this are communicated by, for example, relevant policy documents which mention the research influencing public policy decision making in this area. Policy documents provide us with a different perspective for analysis, allowing a closer proximity to ‘real world’, society-facing issues. 

3. The SDG3 and SDG13 crossover: research outputs associated with zoonotic diseases and climate change

The UN launched the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to address an ongoing crisis: human pressure leading to unprecedented environmental degradation, climatic change, social inequality, and other negative planet-wide consequences.¹⁰ There is growing evidence that environmental change and infectious disease emergence are causally linked and there is an increased recognition that SDGs are linked to one another. Thus, understanding their dynamics is central to achieving the vision of the UN 2030 Agenda. But environmental change also has direct human health outcomes via infectious disease emergence, and this link is not customarily integrated into planning for sustainable development.¹¹

Two of the 17 UN SDGs of most relevance to zoonotic diseases and climate change are SDG3 and SDG13.

Looking specifically at SDG3, reducing global infectious disease risk is one of the targets for the Goal (Target 3.3), alongside strengthening prevention strategies to identify early warning signals (Target 3.d).¹² Given the direct connection between environmental change and infectious disease risk, actions taken to achieve other SDGs also have an impact on the achievement of SDG3. Moreover, strengthening resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters is one of the targets for SDG13 (Target 13.1).¹³ The two SDGs perhaps highlight two sides of the same coin – SDG3 focusing on preventing and reducing disease risks and SDG13 focusing on strengthening resilience of climate-related hazards (infectious disease being an obvious hazard).

Exploring the crossover between SDG3 and SDG13 using Dimensions, reveals interlinkages with other SDGs – SDG1 No Poverty and SDG2 Zero Hunger. We know that living in poverty has negative impacts on health, and in respect of climate change, economic loss attributed to climate-related disasters is now a reality. Experiencing hunger can be a consequence of vulnerable agricultural practices that negatively impact food productivity and production. In 2020, between 720 and 811 million persons worldwide were suffering from hunger, as many as 161 million more than in 2019.¹⁴ Moreover, climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters progressively deteriorate land and soil quality, severely affecting the cost of food items.

4. Funding of research associated with SDG3 and SDG13 – increases in SDG research funding

Scientific advances reveal empirical observations of the association between climate change and shifts in infectious diseases. Using Dimensions we can examine the scientific evidence for this by looking at the impact of climate change on zoonotic diseases. We can also track the science, through the lens of research outputs associated with both SDG3 and SDG13.  

Being able to assess publishing and funding behaviours by comparing the Global North and Global South countries provides us with an insight into where research is both funded and ultimately published. Moreover, one question we might ask is, given that the Global South is currently hardest hit by the consequences of climate change from an infectious disease perspective, will we see changes in publishing and funding practices in the future?

Furthermore, climate change has exacerbated many influencing factors. It has generated habitat loss, pushed wild animals from hotter to cooler climates where they can mix with new animals and more people, and it has lengthened the breeding season and expanded the habitats of disease-spreading mosquitoes, ticks, etc.,¹⁵ and so we could potentially see more zoonotic infectious disease spreading to countries in the Global North. Given these factors, and the capability of Dimensions, we can make comparisons over time and geolocation to track where changes are occurring.

Dimensions search strategy and data investigation

i. Search strategies

Research data were retrieved using Digital Science’s Dimensions database and Google BigQuery (GBQ). For initial searches we created a specific search term to identify publications associated with zoonotic/infectious diseases and climate change. Two sets of terms were used to define the searching keywords. The first was made up of keywords associated with zoonotic and infectious diseases, and the second was simply one word, ‘Climate’, as follows:

Zoonoses OR "zoonotic diseases" OR "parasitic diseases" OR "zoonotic pathogens" OR "vector borne diseases" OR "climate-sensitive infectious diseases" OR "infectious disease risk" OR "infectious diseases" AND Climate.

Dimensions’ inbuilt SDG classification system allowed for the linking of research outputs associated with SDGs both individually and in combination. On this basis we were able to include SDG3 Good Health and Well-being and SDG13 Climate Action to the search, allowing us to include outputs associated with both Goals. The main focus of the search carried out was on peer-reviewed articles and government policy documents between 2010 and 2022. A set of 1,436 research publications were retrieved and entered into further analyses separately. The research outputs retrieved shared a focus on the impact of climate change on pathogen, host and transmission of human zoonotic/infectious diseases.

A dataset based on the research outputs retrieved from Dimensions was created within GBQ. This allowed integration with publicly available datasets from the World Bank to ascertain low and high income countries and regions. The Dimensions GBQ provision also facilitates in-depth targeted analyses. This allowed us to look solely at the publications resulting from our search in order to identify trends in concepts, citations, policy documents and collaborations by geographic region.

ii. Findings

a) Publication timeline trends for research outputs tagged in Dimensions jointly with SDG3 and SDG13 and associated with zoonotic/infectious diseases and climate change were plotted.

Figure 3 highlights the trajectory over a 13-year time period for publications associated with both SDG3 and SDG13 in Dimensions. Of note, following implementation of the UN SDGs in January 2016, the upward trend in numbers of publications begins to rise sharply until the end of 2021, with a dip in 2022.

b) Co-authorship analysis: Collaboration by geographic region

Figure 4a reveals that for every 40 publications authored in a high-income country, one publication was in collaboration with a low-income country-based researcher. Figure 4b reveals that two in three publications authored by low-income country based researchers have been in collaboration with high-income country based researchers. We conclude from this that it is proportionately more likely for low-income country researchers to collaborate with researchers in the Global North than for researchers in the Global North to collaborate with researchers in the Global South. However, it is important to note here that numbers of research outputs are disproportionate between the global regions (see Table 1 below). 

Table 1 outlines the combined total number of authors of published research in the Global South and Global North, including the proportion of researchers against the total number of researchers in each of these regions. The figures in the table reveal that proportionally the number of researchers publishing research on zoonotic diseases and climate change is higher than that of higher-income countries. We argue here that this research focus is not necessarily a niche area for Global South countries (even though their number of research outputs and activity is low in real terms). Consideration of the number of authors publishing zoonotic diseases and climate change research papers against numbers of authors publishing in areas associated more generally with SDG3 and SDG13 provides a glimpse of the breadth of sustainable development research of which our topic area is just one component. 

Despite the crossover with SDG3 and SDG13 not being high, it shows that the engagement of researchers in low-income countries with zoonotic diseases research is notable and contributes to research progress in this area. However, the research is better represented if we look proportionally. For example, 52 researchers in low-income countries represent 8% of the number of zoonotic disease researchers in high-income countries (618), but the total number of researchers publishing overall in low-income countries (45,285) represents just 0.5% of all researchers in high-income countries (7.7 million) making the proportional contribution by low-income country researchers 40 times greater than high-income country researchers in this research area.

c) Research publications by geographic region

Figure 5 above reveals a total of 1,419 research publications pre- and post-SDG period from 2010-2022 by country income group have been captured by Dimensions. The numbers represented in the chart reveal that publications have at least one author in the country income groupings outlined. In order to incorporate collaborations, a publication is included twice if it includes an author within each income group. This only applies for the analysis of country income groups. It allows us to see any increases/decreases in collaborative behaviour. In this respect, we note the contribution (either through collaborating or writing their own publications) from low/low-medium-income (Global South) countries has risen both in number and as a proportion of the outputs from 2010.

d) Citation analysis by geographic regions

The data in Figure 6a and 6b above reveal that:

1. South-East Asia as a producer of this research is dominant in the Global South (see Fig. 6b).

2. In the Global South, South-East Asia both publishes research and favourably cites research from the same region (see Fig. 6a).

3. Research output in South-East Asia is not as highly cited by the Global North (see Fig. 6b). What is notable however, is the overall dominance of the Global North for both research output and citation counts. We conjecture one reason for why this might be the case is that the Global South may not have access to the same level of funding or collaboration opportunities. Moreover, differences in research focus could account for the distinction. Moreover, interest in these areas by high-income country research(ers) may be less pronounced than those research areas elsewhere in the Global South (eg, Africa) where there is more collaboration, or more ‘gain’ for Global North countries (Ebola, Zika etc). For example, if India’s research focus was local to aspects of zoonotic diseases that only affect this country, then it might be less likely that higher income countries would cite the research. This warrants a deeper dive into the data to uncover such findings but is outside the scope of the blog.

In conclusion, it is perhaps the case that areas which are most affected by climate change and zoonotic diseases have become publication ‘hotspots’ which are not yet attractive to researchers in Global North countries.

e) Funding – by income/geography; Funder type

The general trend seen in Fig. 7 above reveals government funding to be the major driving force in zoonotic diseases and climate change research in all of the country groupings.  What Dimensions reveals in this respect is that governments in the Global North provide 100% of the government funding that is held in the Dimensions database for research on these topics in the Global South. This would explain perhaps why low-income countries in the Global South, where research infrastructure isn’t as well funded, receives less government funding as it is awarded by the Global North. Looking at funding from non-profit sources, which includes organisations such as Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Science and Technology Development Fund, we note that such organisations provide nearly a quarter of all research funding held in Dimensions, in the Global South. As with government funding, 98% of all non-profit research funding in both regions comes from non-profit organisations in the Global North. It is interesting to note, given the focus of the research, that only a very small proportion of funding is received across all funder types from the healthcare sector. All other funders included in Fig. 7 92.5% of funding comes from the Global North (healthcare funding is included in this figure).¹⁶

f) Policy documents and their citing publications

In Dimensions, policy sources and document types range from government guidelines, reports or white papers; independent policy institute publications; advisory committees on specific topics; research institutes; and international development organisations. The top 12 policy publishers that are outlined in Fig. 8 above represent those publishers of policies citing research outputs associated with climate change and zoonotic diseases. It is perhaps not unexpected that the number of publications cited by the World Health Organization would be high given its global vision to eliminate the disease burden globally and to reverse climate change. Zoonotic diseases are very much on the radar of the global agencies concerned with global health which, given climate change, means that spread of these diseases in the Global North is more likely.

Takeaway findings

Using Dimensions’ capability to take a deep dive into research exploring zoonotic diseases and climate change in the context of SDGs has enabled us to uncover a number of interesting findings that are illuminating in the context of a world view.

Our investigations have revealed several interesting findings, including:

• Research publications in this area have increased more than two-fold since the implementation of the SDGs.  
• Collaboration patterns in the Global North and Global South reveal that researchers in Global South countries are more likely to collaborate with researchers in the Global North than vice versa.
• The total number of authors publishing research on zoonotic diseases and climate change in the lowest-income countries represents 8% of the total number of zoonotic disease researchers in high-income countries (see Table 1). Expanding this out across all research publications, the total number of researchers publishing in low-income countries represents just 0.5% of all researchers in high-income countries, making the proportional representation of low-income country researchers 40 times greater than high-income country researchers. Although actual numbers would reveal a different story, we believe that depicting the data in this way provides a balanced representation of the research output.
• Research carried out on zoonotic diseases and climate change in the lower income countries is less well cited by higher income countries.
• The data in Dimensions highlights that government organisations in the Global North award much of the funding for research in the Global South, and likewise for funding from non-profit agencies. What we might consider here as an explanation is that numerous organisations in the Global North such as Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the SCI Foundation, along with governments, are committed to the elimination of zoonotic diseases and in helping reduce carbon emissions to reverse climate change at a global level.

Conclusion

What is apparent is that governments around the world are investing large sums of money as part of the global mission to halt the spread of animal diseases and to protect the public against zoonotic disease outbreaks before they become pandemics that pose a risk globally.

Digital Science’s Dimensions database provided us with enormous opportunities for the interrogation of data to gather insights on zoonotic diseases and climate change (much more than could be included in this blog). The comprehensiveness of the database in terms of its coverage of publications, policy documents, grant funding and SDG-associated output (among others) in the Global North and Global South allows for creating the most value. As a linked research database, the possibilities for generating downstream link- and flow- analyses across geographies means it is an invaluable tool for the widest possible discovery across the research ecosystem.

¹ https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40121-022-00647-3.pdf

² Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken,et al. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York,NY: Cambridge University Press.

³ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4459090/pdf/fpubh-03-00157.pdf

⁴ Ajuwon BI, Roper K, Richardson A, Lidbury BA. One Health Approach: A Data-Driven Priority for Mitigating Outbreaks of Emerging and Re-Emerging Zoonotic Infectious Diseases. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2021 Dec 29;7(1):4. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed7010004. PMID: 35051120; PMCID: PMC8780196

⁵ Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(2), 893; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020893

⁶ We use the terms Global North/Global South and High- high middle income and low- low middle income countries interchangeably.

⁷ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31196187/

⁸ https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11356-020-08896-w

⁹ https://www.gov.uk/government/news/200-million-investment-to-fight-zoonotic-diseases#:~:text=The%20%C2%A3200%20million%20funding,Capability%20in%20Animal%20Health%20programme

¹⁰ https://news.un.org/en/search/Sustainable%20development%20goals

¹¹ https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2001655117

¹² https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal3

¹³ https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal13

¹⁴ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/

¹⁵ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/inevitable-outbreaks-spillovers-pandemics

¹⁶ It is important to note here that Dimensions funding data is skewed towards the Global North.

The post Zooming in on zoonotic diseases appeared first on Digital Science.