ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2026
Brain drain or brain circulation? a perspective from Latin American scientists.
Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Though long-standing asymmetries between Global North (GN) and Global South (GS) research systems have shaped the production and circulation of scientific knowledge, a quiet transformation is emerging. Increasing scientific mobility is reframing "brain drain" as brain circulation, highlighting the potential for more reciprocal and equitable exchanges. Scientists from the GS working across borders-the scientific diaspora (SD)-are emerging as key actors in transforming global scientific collaborations. Here, we combine conceptual analysis with survey data from 107 primarily Latin American researchers to examine how structural inequalities and diaspora engagement intersect. Respondents consistently identified interconnected asymmetries, including unequal intellectual recognition, authorship imbalances, and GN dominance in funding and agenda-setting. Publishing systems were also perceived as reinforcing disparities through language barriers and high costs, with women reporting higher levels of structural inequality. Despite these challenges, diaspora scientists are recognized as uniquely positioned to mediate knowledge exchange, expand networks, and foster more equitable collaborations. However, SD transformative potential remains limited by precarious career conditions and weak institutional support. Without structural reform, brain circulation will remain an unrealized promise rather than a pathway toward a more just global scientific system.
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.