Find evidence, practical ideas and fresh insight for greater impact

  • Reduced Inequality
  • For development
  • Brief created: 2023
  • Sign up

The role of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Brief about:

Journal Article (2020)

Open access
Written by:
Doctoral Researcher / Research Assistant | Imperial College London
Other researchers:
Hamdi Issa, Julie Reed, Matthew Harris
PrintShare
Cite page
Skopec, Mark. 'The role of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion: a systematic review and narrative synthesis'. Acume. https://www.acume.org/r/the-role-of-geographic-bias-in-knowledge-diffusion-a-systematic-review-and-narrative-synthesis/

 This research synthesised the evidence from three randomised and controlled studies investigating geographic bias in the evaluation of research.

The research was designed to highlight the role biases play in the prejudgment of research on a global scale, and to provide recommendations on how to create a more equitable playing field in the diffusion of knowledge, both at the level of peer review for academic journals and for research consumption at the individual level.

 

Key findings

  1. Anecdotal evidence suggests the presence of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion. Yet, there are few controlled or experimental studies investigating this phenomenon. This makes it difficult to draw strong conclusions about causality. This review only found three experimental studies conducted on the topic, suggesting further experimental research could be necessary.
  2. Institutions that contain a geographic identifier or a recognizable "brand" linked to a country elicit a bias. Research from an institution in a high-income country ("Harvard University" or "University of Freiburg") was rated higher than research from a low-income country ("University of Addis Ababa" or "University of Mzuzu"). Separately, reviewers recommend articles for acceptance if they were from top-ranked universities, which were more often in high-income countries.
  3. Academic journals that contain geographic identifiers could also elicit bias. The two studies that investigated this dimension of geographic bias did not find conclusive results of its effect on the evaluation of research. Future studies could be designed to investigate this in more detail.

Proposed action

  1. People should reflect on how their biases impact them personally and professionally

    For example, they should employ a structured approach when they review and critique research, rather than judging it based on other factors that shouldn't affect the quality of the research, such as where it is from.

  2. Teachers should seek to give their students a more inclusive representation of topics

    They could reflect on the research they are using, aim to include research produced outside of familiar spaces in Europe or North America, and invite students to contribute new, more diverse perspectives and research.

Comments

You must log in to ask a question
 

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Ramya Zwaal for preparation assistance

We would like to extend a special thank you to Ramya Zwaal, for their invaluable contribution in assisting the preparation of this research summary.

Are you a researcher looking to make a real-world impact? Join Acume and transform your research into a practical summary.

Already have an account? Log in
Share

The role of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Cite this brief: Skopec, Mark. 'The role of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion: a systematic review and narrative synthesis'. Acume. https://www.acume.org/r/the-role-of-geographic-bias-in-knowledge-diffusion-a-systematic-review-and-narrative-synthesis/

Brief created by: Mark Skopec | Year brief made: 2023

Original research:

  • H. I., Skopec, M., & et al., ‘The role of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion: a systematic review and narrative synthesis’ Research Integrity and Peer Review 5 (2) (pp. 1–14) https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0088-0. – https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-019-0088-0

Research brief:

This research synthesised the evidence from three randomised and controlled studies investigating geographic bias in the evaluation of research.

The research was designed to highlight the role biases play in the prejudgment of research on a global scale, and to provide recommendations on how to create a more equitable playing field in the diffusion of knowledge, both at the level of peer review for academic journals and for research consumption at the individual level.

Findings:

Anecdotal evidence suggests the presence of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion. Yet, there are few controlled or experimental studies investigating this phenomenon. This makes it difficult to draw strong conclusions about causality. This review only found three experimental studies conducted on the topic, suggesting further experimental research could be necessary.

Institutions that contain a geographic identifier or a recognizable “brand” linked to a country elicit a bias. Research from an institution in a high-income country (“Harvard University” or “University of Freiburg”) was rated higher than research from a low-income country (“University of Addis Ababa” or “University of Mzuzu”). Separately, reviewers recommend articles for acceptance if they were from top-ranked universities, which were more often in high-income countries.

Academic journals that contain geographic identifiers could also elicit bias. The two studies that investigated this dimension of geographic bias did not find conclusive results of its effect on the evaluation of research. Future studies could be designed to investigate this in more detail.

Advice:

People should reflect on how their biases impact them personally and professionally

    • For example, they should employ a structured approach when they review and critique research, rather than judging it based on other factors that shouldn’t affect the quality of the research, such as where it is from.

Teachers should seek to give their students a more inclusive representation of topics

    • They could reflect on the research they are using, aim to include research produced outside of familiar spaces in Europe or North America, and invite students to contribute new, more diverse perspectives and research.
Open Access|Peer Reviewed

"The role of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion: a systematic review and narrative synthesis"

Cite paper

H. I., Skopec, M., & et al., ‘The role of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion: a systematic review and narrative synthesis’ Research Integrity and Peer Review 5 (2) (pp. 1–14) https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0088-0.

2020 · Research Integrity and Peer Review · pp. 1-14Find full paper →DOI: 10.1186/s41073-019-0088-0
Co-authors
Hamdi Issa, Julie Reed, Matthew Harris
Methodology
This is a quantitative study.

A systematic review was conducted. Based on the research question, a number of different search terms were used to systematically search several databases. The results were screened to exclude articles which did not fit the criteria (randomised or controlled studies). The abstracts of the remaining articles were read to further narrow down the articles. After reading the remaining articles in full, three were chosen. Narrative synthesis was used: different outcomes were described and compared. Limitations included the fact that the databases searched were predominantly medical databases, and only published articles written in English were examined.

Funding

This research was independently conducted and did not receive funding from outside of the university.

Your research brief is live

It’s now visible on your profile and searchable by practitioners. Thank you for making your work accessible to decision-makers who need it

Close

Your research brief was updated

Changes are live now. 

Close

Your account is pending verification

We’ve been notified and will review it shortly. Once verified, it will be published and visible to practitioners.

We have this email on file: . If this isn’t your work email, update it to speed things up.

Update email

Your draft has been saved

Your draft has been saved. You can return to edit and publish it anytime from your dashboard.

Close

Thank you for subscribing!

We’d love to know who we will be talking to, could you take a moment to share a few more details?

Thanks for signing up!
If you haven’t already, create a free account to access expert insights and be part of a global effort to improve real-world decisions.

Get started

Close

For researchers

Turn your paper into a practical brief practitioners will read.

Sign up freeLearn more

For professionals

Explore free briefs, and book a call for deeper insights when you need them.

Talk with the teamLearn more