Two decades of neuroscience publication trends in Africa

Africa faces a significant disease burden despite constituting 15% of the global population. Its rich biodiversity offers potential for understanding neurological disorders, yet neuroscience research capacity lags behind global advancements due to low funding, inadequate infrastructure, limited researchers, and high teaching loads. While initiatives aim to address these challenges, a clear picture of truly African-led neuroscience research is lacking. Previous studies using database mining techniques have not effectively differentiated African-led studies from those led by researchers elsewhere, leading to an overestimation of African contributions. This study aims to provide a more accurate assessment of African-led neuroscience publications by manually curating PubMed data to identify studies conducted in Africa and led by African researchers. This allows for a more precise understanding of the current state of neuroscience research on the continent and informs future policy decisions.

Existing literature highlights the scarcity of neuroscience research in Africa, attributing it to various factors including low funding, insufficient infrastructure, a limited number of active researchers, and heavy teaching burdens. Previous attempts to quantify African neuroscience research outputs through database mining have limitations, often failing to distinguish between African-led and externally-led studies. These studies often overestimate African contributions, neglecting the crucial distinction between research conducted in Africa and research led by African scientists. This study builds upon these previous works by focusing exclusively on identifying and analyzing publications that represent genuine African-led neuroscience research.

The study analyzed PubMed-indexed publications affiliated with African institutions from 1996 to 2017. The researchers manually curated 12,326 publications to identify those where the research was clearly conducted in Africa and led by African-based researchers. This resulted in a subset of 2,519 publications. Key metrics were extracted, including author affiliations, neuroscience field, journals, citations, funding, models, and techniques. For comparison, the same metrics were extracted from randomly selected publications from the UK, USA, Australia, Japan, and Brazil. Data analysis was performed using a combination of Microsoft Excel, Igor Pro 6, and GNU-R. The study categorized research techniques into 'type 1' (requiring minimal infrastructure) and 'type 2' (requiring substantial investment in research infrastructure). The analysis also investigated funding sources (domestic and international), co-authorship patterns (intra-African and international), and the use of model systems and medicinal plants.

The analysis revealed that a small number of African countries (Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria, Morocco, and Tunisia) dominated neuroscience publications. While the overall number of publications is increasing, the number of publications per country remains low, with over half of African countries contributing fewer than 10 papers. International co-authored papers tended to receive more citations and were published in higher impact factor journals. Most African neuroscience publications were funded by international agencies (primarily the USA and UK), with a notable lack of domestic funding in most regions. The use of advanced research techniques ('type 2') was limited, and there was a near-complete absence of the use of readily available, genetically tractable model organisms. Research on medicinal plants was prevalent in some West African countries but less so in others. South Africa stands out due to its comparatively high level of domestic funding, potentially linked to national policy changes.

The findings highlight the growing but still limited nature of African neuroscience research. The reliance on international funding and the lack of domestic investment in infrastructure and advanced techniques are significant challenges. Increased domestic funding is crucial for long-term sustainability, alongside promoting intra-African collaborations to maximize the impact of limited resources. Furthermore, promoting the use of low-cost, genetically tractable model organisms and addressing the limitations in access to advanced equipment are critical steps for advancement. The study also suggests the need to raise the profile of African-led research through targeted publication strategies and science advocacy.

African neuroscience publications are increasing, but further growth necessitates increased domestic funding, infrastructure development, adoption of genetically tractable models, and enhanced intra-African collaboration. Addressing these challenges will improve the visibility and impact of African neuroscience research on a global scale.

The study relies on PubMed data, which may not capture all neuroscience publications, especially those published in non-indexed journals. The manual curation process, while thorough, is subject to human error. The comparison with non-African countries may not fully account for differences in research priorities and funding structures.