ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Towards inclusive authorship: Analyzing author representation in PLOS Global Public Health front matter content.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reconfiguring global primary care evidence: The essential role of regional journals.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2026Article
- Expanding equity horizons in knowledge sharing: How can global health journals level up?International journal of public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Underrepresentation and lack of inclusion of Global South researchers have been key shortcomings in global health publications. This has contributed to epistemic injustice in global health and impacted evidence informed policymaking. PLOS Global Public Health (GPH)was launched in 2021 with the goal of charting a new path towards equity, diversity and inclusion in global health publications. The journal also invited independent assessments of its progress. This study analyses commissioned 136 front matter content (opinions, reviews, and essays) and a total of 878 authors published in PLOS GPH between October 2021 and December 2024. Using publicly available data from the journal website and online profiles, we examined authorship representation based on World Bank country income classification, gender, and Indigeneity. Additionally, we examined article content in terms of country focus and topics covered. We inferred gender by reviewing public profiles for gendered prefixes and pronouns and when unavailable by using genderize.io. We analyzed for Indigeneity by reviewing authors' public profiles. Our results indicate that 609 of 878 (69%) of authors for the commissioned content were affiliated with high income countries. Under gender representation, 403 of 878 (46%) authors identified as women compared to 471 of 878 (54%) as men. Only 7 of 135 (5%) first authors and 6 of 117 (5%) senior authors publicly identified as Indigenous. While most articles had a global focus (78 of 136, or 57%), 46 of 136 (34%) focused on the Global South, and 12 of 136 (8%) on the Global North. Global South affiliated authors were better represented in articles pertaining to the Global South, comprising on average 43% of authorship compared to an overall average of 30%. To advance equity, journals should commission more content from Global South authors and actively invite contributions from Indigenous and gender-diverse authors on topics relevant to their communities.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.