Supporting Public Health Research Capacity, Quality, and Productivity in a Diverse Region

Public health research plays a critical role in strengthening health systems and improving their performance and impact. However, scholarly production in public health coming from the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) remains well below the world average and lacks a tangible growth trend over time. During the seventh Eastern Mediterranean Public Health Network Regional Conference, a roundtable session brought together a panel of public health experts representing Global Health Development/Eastern Mediterranean Public Health Network affiliates, universities or academia, and research institutions from the region, where they shared insights on the current situation of public health research; challenges and barriers to research facing the different countries in the EMR and the region in general; and how research agendas, productivity, and quality can be supported through strengthening research capacity in the region. Although the region is diverse in terms of health system capacity and socioeconomic development, several common challenges were identified, including a lack of strategic prioritization to guide health research, insufficient funding, ineffective transfer of knowledge to policy and practice, limited availability of research facilities, and limited national and international research collaboration. Occupied countries and countries in a state of conflict, such as Palestine, face additional barriers, such as personal and social security, lack of control of borders and natural resources, travel and movement restrictions, and confidentiality challenges because of the continuing war conditions and occupation. However, there have been success stories in the EMR regarding research publications and their positive and effective impact on policy and decision-makers. To improve research resilience and public health care in the region, a collaborative approach involving institutions, policymakers, and relevant stakeholders is critical.

Parochialism or self-consciousness? Internationality in medical history journals 1997-2006

Research councils, universities and funding agencies are increasingly asking for tools to measure the quality of research in the humanities. One of their preferred methods is a ranking of journals according to their supposed level of internationality. Our quantitative survey of seventeen major journals of medical history reveals the futility of such an approach. Most journals have a strong national character with a dominance of native language, authors and topics. The most common case is a paper written by a local author in his own language on a national subject regarding the nineteenth or twentieth century. American and British journals are taken notice of internationally but they only rarely mention articles from other history of medicine journals. Continental European journals show a more international review of literature, but are in their turn not noticed globally. Increasing specialisation and fragmentation has changed the role of general medical history journals. They run the risk of losing their function as international platforms of discourse on general and theoretical issues and major trends in historiography, to international collections of papers. Journal editors should therefore force their authors to write a more international report, and authors should be encouraged to submit papers of international interest and from a more general, transnational and methodological point of view.