Who decides tropical medicine research? ^{CEFR B1}

The study reviewed 24 journals and more than 2,000 editorial board members, using public information collected from October 2024 to December 2024. Two thirds of board members were identified as men. More than half came from high‑income countries, while fewer than 3 per cent came from low‑income countries. Regions that suffer most from tropical diseases were underrepresented: Latin America 16 per cent, Sub‑Saharan Africa 11 per cent, South Asia 10 per cent and the Middle East and North Africa 3 per cent.

The authors describe a geopolitical divide: 40 per cent of board members come from G7 countries and two‑thirds from G20 countries, while BRICS countries represent less than a quarter. They argue these patterns can skew how research is assessed and which studies are valued, because editors in affluent countries often decide what is published even for diseases that mainly affect poorer nations.

The study links editorial imbalance to funding inequities. It reports global funders allocate 75 per cent of direct and 70 per cent of indirect neglected tropical disease funding to leading institutes in non‑endemic nations. The authors say this can modernise infrastructure in wealthier countries while continuing colonial patterns through sample collection. They recommend mandatory diversity and inclusion policies, mentorship, inclusive language and transparent recruitment, plus funding for scientists where tropical diseases occur.