Conducting and Publishing Research in Developing Countries: Challenges and Solutions

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 634-638
Author(s):  
Devendra Potnis ◽  
Bhakti Gala ◽  
Edda Tandi Lwoga ◽  
Anwarul Islam ◽  
Nosheen Warraich ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohan R Sharma

In 2002, Richard Smith wrote an editorial, “publishing research from developing countries” in the Journal “Statistics in Medicine” highlighting the importance of research and publication from the developing countries (DCs).1 In that article, he mentioned the disparity in research and publication between the developed and developing countries. Almost two decades on, the problem still largely remains the same. It is estimated that more than 80% of the world’s population lives in more than 100 developing countries.2 In terms of disease burden, the prevalence and mortality from diseases in the low and middle-income countries are disproportionately high compared to developed countries.3 Although there is a high burden of disease, we base our treatment inferring results from research and publication from the developed countries which may not be fully generalizable due to geographical cultural, racial, and economic factors. This is where the problem lies.



2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Umbetzhanova ◽  
G Derbissalina ◽  
V Koikov ◽  
Z Bekbergenova

Abstract Background Starting in 2013, the rating of medical universities Republic of Kazakhstan(RK) on scientific and innovational activities was introduced. Various characteristics that can influence on scientific performance were investigated. We assessed the impact of national and international collaboration on the scientific performance of medical universities of RK. Methods Publications metrics such as impact factor (IF) of journals, quartile of the journal and the number of citations of RK authors in the field of medicine published in 2013-2018 in Web of Science database were analyzed, according to the level of co-authorship. Results Authors affiliated with one organization (group 1) average impact factor of journals was (0.391(CI = ±0.04), in national co-authorship (group 2) (0.648(CI = ±0,04), in international co-authorship (group 3) 3.703 (CI = ±0.08) There is no statistically significant difference between IF of journals in which authors are from one organization or in national co-authorship, and there is a statistically significant difference between 3 (international co-authorship) and the 1 and 2 groups. Further, the journals were distributed depending on the quartile of the journal (Q1,Q2,Q3,Q4) and an analysis was carried out depending on citations and the level of co-authorship (one organization, national, international). The highest percentage of co-authorship was found in the journals of the first quartile (92.8%), in the journals Q2-80.1%,Q3-74%,Q4-28.6%). 95.9% of citations come from publications in international co-authorship. Conclusions International cooperation expands the possibilities of obtaining an interest in the study. Not the poor quality of research of local authors, but the difficulty of publishing the results of research in top journals for authors from developing countries without the support of international co-authors, also due to the 'Matthew effect' for some countries. It is recommended that medical researchers should expand international cooperation Key messages When presenting the results of their research, researchers should consider the impact and possibilities of international co-authorship to expand the audience. The difficulty of publishing research results in leading journals for authors from developing countries without the support of international co-authors.



2002 ◽  
Vol 21 (19) ◽  
pp. 2869-2877 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Smith










Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document