ArticlePloS one2026
Perceived barriers for accessing international research funding among Latin American researchers.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Access to international funding is increasingly essential for sustaining research in a highly competitive and globalized scientific landscape; however, researchers in Latin America face persistent structural constraints that limit their competitiveness. This study aimed to identify perceived barriers and strategies to mitigate structural disadvantages in accessing international research funding. We employed a sequential mixed-methods design. In the qualitative phase, a virtual focus group with five researchers from Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, and Guatemala explored experiences with international grant applications. Thematic analysis revealed three overarching themes: (1) strategies and good practices; (2) barriers and structural constraints; and (3) recommendations to support more inclusive funding practices. Barriers included language and cultural differences, perceived bias from Global North funders, differences in infrastructural expectations, and limited opportunities for networking. These insights informed the design of a quantitative survey, which was completed by 253 researchers from 16 countries; 60.4% had applied to international calls and 43.6% reported receiving at least one grant. Across 668 reported applications, success rate was 40.6%. The most frequently endorsed barriers were economic costs of networking (92.3%), misalignment between eligibility criteria and local trajectories (80.8%), rhetorical differences in grant writing (75.3%), and self-perceptions of lower competitiveness (69.2%). Results highlight persistent structural, linguistic, and cultural barriers that shape access to international funding. Participants proposed actionable strategies-particularly for international funders seeking to broaden Global South participation-including context-sensitive grant-writing training, mentorship schemes, and funding calls explicitly designed to account for the Latin American realities.
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.