ArticlemicroLife2026
Fragile research systems, brain drain, and predatory publishing in under-resourced countries.
Article in microLife, 2026. 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.
- Indian Journal of Psychiatry: A thriving journal from Global South looking into the horizon.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2026Article
- Scientists' Warning to Humanity: Unnecessary Bureaucracy Is a Global Impediment to Productivity, Advancement of Human and Planetary Wellbeing, Science and Sustainability.Microbial biotechnology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many countries with lower research & innovation capacity face persistent constraints in building stable research systems. Chronic underfunding and weak science policy reduce institutional capacity and limit researchers' career prospects. These conditions encourage brain drain, particularly among early-career scientists who seek predictable funding, transparent evaluation, and merit-based advancement. As a result, research institutions lose skilled personnel, which weakens scientific training, governance, and research output. Additionally, within this environment, predatory publishing practices create further damage. These scientific outlets reward volume over quality, thus distorting evaluation criteria. They promote negative selection by favouring speed of publication at the expense of rigorous peer review. Over time, this weakens academic standards and undermines trust in the research output. The result is a decline in scientific credibility and an overall reduction in international competitiveness. Although predatory publishing is motivated by financial gain, it results in serious institutional consequences. It directly reshapes hiring, promotion, and funding decisions in ways that disadvantage high-quality research. This contributes to the erosion of both research integrity and academic communities.
Indexed as
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.