Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41196910›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2025

Reimagining open science for global health: Epistemic power and the pursuit of health equity.

Alice Rangel Teixeira, Ricardo Kleinlein, Nai Lee Kalema, Gift Osei Agyemang, Charles Senteio, Leo Anthony Celi, Seth Agyemang, Meskerem Aleka Kebede

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. When evidence meets artificial intelligence.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026
    Review
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Alice Rangel TeixeiraDepartment of Philosophy, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5034-1223
Ricardo KleinleinDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7313-7601
Nai Lee KalemaInstitute for Innovation and Public Purpose, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Gift Osei AgyemangDepartment of Medical Laboratory Science, University of Energy and Natural Resources, Sunyani, Ghana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8627-7355
Charles SenteioDepartment of Library and Information Science, Rutgers School of Communication and Information, New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0254-3127
Leo Anthony CeliLaboratory for Computational Physiology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Seth AgyemangDirectorate of Surgery, Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Kumasi, Ghana.
Meskerem Aleka KebedeGlobal Surgery Policy Unit, LSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7427-0897

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper critically examines how current forms of Open Science (OS) fall short of advancing health equity in global health. While OS is promoted as a public good, promising transparency, efficiency, and inclusive, current practices often reproduce rather than dismantle entrenched inequities. Data-sharing infrastructures and open-access policies, largely shaped by high-income countries, frequently extract from but fail to empower low- and middle-income countries. Appeals to transparency likewise overlook deeper asymmetries in whose knowledge is recognized, whose labor is valued, and whose communities benefit from scientific advances. We argue that in the context of global health, OS must be re-imagined not as a technical reform but as a political and epistemic project oriented toward health equity. Drawing on feminist, de-colonial, and Black feminist scholarship, we show how global health knowledge has been structured through histories of exclusion that continue to shape categories, standards, and priorities. Building on these critiques, the paper advances five guiding commitments for re-imagining OS: epistemic plurality, redistribution of resources, accountability to marginalized communities, co-creation and participatory governance, and reflexivity and care. Rather than a prescriptive model, these commitments offer enabling conditions for a more equitable and pluralistic science, reclaiming imagination as a vital resource for collective transformation.

Identifiers

PMID41196910
PMCPMC12591430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.