“…How consequential is this minority of academic global health publications written for the foreign gaze? It is almost certain that local output is much more consequential, if only because sustainable progress in global health is homegrown, with local processes being responsible for much historical improvements in global health outcomes and equity23–27—and, for example, there is as yet no association between the density of papers in global databases on universal health coverage from a country and its attainment by the country 28. What gets written for the foreign gaze reflects the appetite of the foreign gaze,29–35 which is more attuned to the ‘surgical’ than to the ‘organic’ 36.…”