The role of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Abstract

Background: Descriptive studies examining publication rates and citation counts demonstrate a geographic skew toward high-income countries (HIC), and research from low-or middle-income countries (LMICs) is generally underrepresented. This has been suggested to be due in part to reviewers' and editors' preference toward HIC sources; however, in the absence of controlled studies, it is impossible to assert whether there is bias or whether variations in the quality or relevance of the articles being reviewed explains the geographic divide. This study synthesizes the evidence from randomized and controlled studies that explore geographic bias in the peer review process. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify research studies that explicitly explore the role of geographic bias in the assessment of the quality of research articles. Only randomized and controlled studies were included in the review. Five databases were searched to locate relevant articles. A narrative synthesis of included articles was performed to identify common findings. Results: The systematic literature search yielded 3501 titles from which 12 full texts were reviewed, and a further eight were identified through searching reference lists of the full texts. Of these articles, only three were randomized and controlled studies that examined variants of geographic bias. One study found that abstracts attributed to HIC sources elicited a higher review score regarding relevance of the research and likelihood to recommend the research to a colleague, than did abstracts attributed to LIC sources. Another study found that the predicted odds of acceptance for a submission to a computer science conference were statistically significantly higher for submissions from a "Top University." Two of the studies showed the presence of geographic bias between articles from "high" or "low" prestige institutions. Conclusions: Two of the three included studies identified that geographic bias in some form was impacting on peer review; however, further robust, experimental evidence is needed to adequately inform practice surrounding this topic. Reviewers and researchers should nonetheless be aware of whether author and institutional characteristics are interfering in their judgement of research.

Implicit bias in healthcare: clinical practice, research and decision making

“…62 A systematic review (three randomised control trials; n=2,568) found geographic bias for research from high-income countries or more prestigious journals over lowincome countries or less prestigious journals. 63 This highlights how publication bias for research from high-income countries could neglect a wealth of data from low-income countries that is valid, even if it is not published, or only published in lower impact journals. These data highlight a greater need for more objective assessments of research, including multiple layers of blinding with a journal review board and peer reviewers from low-income countries.…”

“…These data highlight a greater need for more objective assessments of research, including multiple layers of blinding with a journal review board and peer reviewers from low-income countries. 63 However, blinding may be beneficial when recruiting people to jobs from job applications given that application photos may influence the selection process at resident or registrar level. 64 It may be difficult to anonymise citations or publication data during academic selection processes.…”

COVID-19: an opportunity to rethink global cooperation in higher education and research

“…Further, the perceived higher status of universities in the Global North disproportionately draws talented international students to their degree programmes. [17][18][19][20][21][22] We should rethink and indeed disband university rankings, replace authorship positions with statements of contribution, and judge our researchers and educators based on the full range of activities, on October 31, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright.…”

Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Examining author gender, geographic location, and institutional affiliation

“…Broadly speaking, researchers have raised concerns that author characteristics, such as gender, [10][11][12][13] geographical location, [14][15][16] and institutional affiliation 17,18 can bias publications, including knowledge syntheses, and inadvertently reinforce dominant power structures. To this point, the Cochrane Collaboration, a major supporter and publisher of systematic reviews, has flagged the lack of international representation and diversity in published reviews as a significant problem and reports that more diverse author teams generate more relevant reviews with less research waste and fewer errors.…”