Leveling the playing field: supporting authors from resource-limited settings to conduct and publish systematic reviews in JBI Evidence Synthesis

Introduction Systematic reviews, alongside primary studies and clinical guidelines, form the core of evidence-informed health care and are considered the most reliable sources of information that can guide research, policy, and practice.1 Journals that focus on evidence syntheses can steer this transfer of knowledge, ensuring such research reflects global health priorities. As the demand for globally relevant evidence grows, authors from resource-limited settings (ie, low- and middle-income countries LMICs) and authors who speak English as an additional language remain underrepresented in published research syntheses due to existing systemic barriers.2-4 This imbalance between those who get published and those who do not is concerning, as it perpetuates inequities in research, limits the generalization and application of the synthesized findings, and potentially introduces bias to the review process. To truly understand health care problems and how best to address them, health care science must be culturally, linguistically, and geographically diverse. Measures that move towards equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) should thus be integrated into the scientific publishing process.5 JBI is well-positioned to help foster a more equitable research landscape, given its global, collaborative community (at the time of writing, JBI collaborates with more than 90 entities across more than 40 countries) whose collective mission is to strengthen evidence-based health care. JBI Evidence Synthesis is 1 of 2 official journals of JBI and is an international, high-ranking, society journal. Given that JBI Evidence Synthesis encourages authors and journals alike to promote equitable practice, we have a responsibility to lead by example.6 This editorial aims to i) identify the key barriers that authors from resource-limited settings face and the resulting implications; and ii) highlight actionable solutions that we, as a journal, are implementing to increase rigor and limit potential biases of evidence synthesis (see Figure 1 for an overview). Figure 1: Barriers, implications, and initiatives associated with promoting systematic reviews from resource-limited settings Barriers and implications for authors from resource-limited settings conducting systematic reviews Language barriers and implications English is the lingua franca of academia.7 Although the adoption of a universal scientific language has, arguably, broadened the ability to communicate research, it has also created an uneven playing field. In the field of evidence synthesis, resources essential to conducting a review are predominantly in English, including articles, search databases, and review-specific tools and instruments (eg, guidance documents for conduct, critical appraisal tools, software). Authors who use English as an additional language may face tremendous challenges across the various phases of review conduct and reporting. Accessing, screening, reading, and interpreting papers in a language authors are not proficient in will inevitably be burdensome on their resources and time. Because of these barriers, authors may inadvertently introduce errors into the review process, thereby decreasing the rigor and credibility of their work. One example of this relates to translating articles considered relevant for a review. If authors choose to translate articles into another language, verifying the translation or back-translating (ie, translating text back into its original language) can be difficult and lead to misinterpretation. This is particularly problematic for reviews that include studies that require nuanced reading, such as qualitative research or textual evidence pieces. Given the substantial effort and resources required to manage these challenges, many authors tend to focus on English papers even when they are not proficient in English, opting for the greatest likely volume of eligible studies to be included. This practice can have serious implications for the results of a review and raises concerns over both language and publication bias. Non-English-speaking authors and authors who speak English as an additional language also face systemic hurdles regarding equitable publication, especially considering that most high-ranking journals exclusively accept submissions written in English. Disseminating research in English can be challenging for authors who may already lack the resources to support the publication (ie, publication costs, database access) of their work. In fact, many authors from resource-limited settings publish in local non-English journals, as this allows their findings to be accessible to those who most need it, but also because this approach avoids the linguistic, resource, and training barriers faced when publishing in English-language journals. Because language-specific journals may not be indexed in English databases or vice versa, this approach limits the global evidence base. While this editorial is focused on the inequities that language and resource barriers place on authors from LMICs, many of the challenges that arise due to the predominance of English in scientific publishing are also encountered by authors from some high-income countries. Resource barriers and implications Many authors do not have sufficient resources to support proper conduct and publication of reviews. Lack of access to international and local databases, subscriptions to international journals, software supporting the evidence synthesis process, and technical training (eg, JBI Comprehensive Systematic Review or Cochrane training) presents significant hurdles for these authors.8,9 Additionally, authors may not have sufficient funding needed for translation, editing, and subsequent publication charges. Tools necessary for translation may also be difficult to understand and use when written in or translated into another language, and authors may not have the funding for translation and/or verification. Tools or software to support the review processes commonly have an English interface (eg, JBI SUMARI, Covidence). Because of these limitations, reviews may not be conducted with the rigor necessary to conduct a quality synthesis of all available evidence.10 Furthermore, the time and effort needed to translate, validate the translation, interpret, synthesize, and present evidence in English can exacerbate the burdens placed on these authors. Training barriers and implications To conduct rigorous and comprehensive reviews, knowledge and technical skill are needed. Reviews are often complicated and demand specific software for screening and extraction (ie, JBI SUMARI, Covidence). For those in resource-limited settings, lack of access to these tools and software can negatively impact the conduct of the review.8,9 Further to this point, there is a range of different types of reviews that can address specific research questions, such as systematic reviews and scoping reviews. These reviews use specialized and complex methodologies and methods that need to be applied appropriately, and this often requires training. Although training is available, it is often offered exclusively in English. Collectively, the barriers mentioned here lead to biases and inequities in conducting and disseminating reviews. Initiatives from JBI Evidence Synthesis to support authors from resource-limited settings There is a need for journals to consider how we unintentionally create barriers for authors and how we can help remove them. JBI Evidence Synthesis is an English-language journal, and it is important to acknowledge this limitation. We, as a journal, are committed to promoting diversity and actively supporting authors from resource-limited settings.11 Toward achieving these goals, JBI Evidence Synthesis has implemented a range of initiatives to foster global representation and reduce inequities in evidence synthesis publishing. We describe these initiatives here and encourage our peers in publishing to consider these ideas with their own approaches. Identifying and supporting authors from different backgrounds Acknowledging the disparities experienced by authors from resource-limited settings, our journal collects background information from authors. For authors whose team resides in LMICs, additional support with database searching may be available, thereby increasing the quality of the submission and the likelihood of successful publication. Reducing language barriers (translation of abstracts) As a journal, JBI Evidence Synthesis is committed to sharing diverse voices, which is evident through our initiative to offer authors the opportunity to submit a translation of their review abstract if members of the team are proficient in a language other than English.12 As of 2025, JBI Evidence Synthesis has published 32 abstracts in 19 languages. In-house editing for all manuscripts Following a thorough peer review process, all manuscripts accepted for publication undergo a professional in-house editorial review, including support for authors from resource-limited settings. Editors on the team focus on refining language, clarity, and logic, whilst preserving the authors’ voice. Capacity building through global training JBI offers regular training programs to support authors who are conducting systematic reviews and scoping reviews using JBI methods. Specifically, training programs to support the conduct of comprehensive systematic reviews and scoping reviews, and application of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach are offered regularly. Training is delivered by JBI in Adelaide and online, as well throughout JBI Collaboration Centers worldwide, many of which are located in LMICs, increasing global accessibility to JBI methods. Increasing rigor To help reduce the potential for language and publication biases in evidence synthesis, we caution authors against limiting their reviews to studies published in English. We do, however, recognize that this approach depends on the capabilities of the review team. Language restrictions in systematic reviews should not be imposed in the search phase6,13 but may be incorporated as part of the eligibility criteria, if necessary.14 If criteria do include English limits, authors must provide appropriate justification, report the number of studies excluded for not being published in English, and acknowledge the limitations of this approach.6 Furthermore, we recognize the need for further detailed guidance on the use of translation software (eg, DeepL, Google Translate) and the verification process needed for the translation process. Supporting authors with publication fees JBI Evidence Synthesis does not charge publication fees for systematic reviews, scoping reviews, or methodology papers. However, article page charges are applicable to protocols published in our journal. There are several pathways to a reduction or waiver of this fee. Author teams where all authors are based in LMICs will be considered for a full waiver of article page charges on a case-by-case basis.15 Additionally, authors affiliated with JBI entities, many of which are located in LMICs and regions where English is not a primary language, are exempt from article page charges. It is worth acknowledging that all protocols are published as Free Access, meaning they are freely available to read without a subscription. If authors wish to retain copyright of their work, they have the option to make their article Open Access, which does incur a charge. Conclusion The value that linguistic, geographical, political, and sociocultural diversity brings cannot be overstated, and as a journal, we are dedicated to making science more inclusive. Our initiatives reflect our long-standing commitment to ensuring that authors from all regions, particularly those from resource-limited settings, are empowered to contribute to the global evidence base. We look now to bolstering existing initiatives and introducing new ones that help to level the playing field.