Comments
Dr Bello RS
01 December, 2025
The author Mariam Sayab really expanded issues around poor visibility of research outcomes and the fear of publishing negative results that are viable research outcomes when empirical proofs indicate so.
However, the biggest challenge facing research publishing and visibility in the global south is the towering cost of APCs, especially in the gold-classed journals. This led researchers to resort to publishing in unrated, and most often, predatory journals, leading to the loss of visibility of such research.
The solution, among others, is to further give priority consideration to free article publication in those gold journals from low-income countries. Valuable research outcomes have been morally murdered by these high costs from the rated impact publishing outfits. Again, there should be more advocacy towards indigenization or decentralization of the concentration of these outfits in the global north enclaves to the benefit of fine researchers dotting the global south regions. This will enhance globalization, inclusivity, and fairness in the world of publishing.
SAAD TAYYAB
01 December, 2025This article in EditorsCafe written by Maryam Sayab highlights how the real gaps in research often stem from limited dissemination rather than a lack of inquiry. Several structural barriers such as language, funding, mentoring, and publication bias silence valuable work, especially from underrepresented regions. The consequences extend beyond academia, influencing policy, funding priorities, and global recognition. The discussion on indexing reveals that such recognition requires sustained visibility and metadata quality. By emphasizing the bias toward positive results, the text exposes how scientific records become skewed and incomplete. The section on local ecosystems illustrates how hidden research weakens institutional growth, researcher development, and policy relevance. Overall, the paragraph effectively argues that invisibility in research is not just a publishing issue but a systemic challenge that shapes global and local scientific landscapes.
Prof. Mohamed Abdel-Raheem Ali Abdel-Raheem
01 December, 2025
Limited access to scientific journals or publication fee restrictions,
Lack of guidance or institutional support.
Jeanne Alejo- Abitago
02 December, 2025I agree that the biggest problem is that not publishing all research creates bad data and unfairness. We must switch to Open Science to make every result visible, ensuring better, fairer decisions.
Prof. Dr. Maan Abdul Azeez Shafeeq
02 December, 2025Publishing policies in Arab countries are very outdated. In some countries, professors and researchers face immense pressure to publish in Scopus, especially if they are in the first or second quartile. The primary goal of educational authorities is to improve the ranking of the academic institution, regardless of the scientific quality of the research. This is compounded by a lack of financial support for researchers, inadequate equipment and materials at universities and colleges, the weakness of local journals, bias, and other factors that influence publication. The main objective of these journals is to gain entry into Scopus, not to mention the pressures and negative impacts on professors and researchers. Most, if not all, research published from Arab countries in Scopus is based on high publication fees, and the lack of allocated funds for publishing this research is another contributing factor. The focus is solely on improving the academic institution's ranking and achieving higher positions in global classifications. These problems in Arab countries remain unresolved and will continue to worsen as long as scientific merit is disregarded and the focus remains solely on achieving high rankings. Scientific research is lacking, and there is no encouragement or follow-up for researchers by officials in scientific institutions.
Amalendu Bhunia
02 December, 2025
If the topic doesn’t match the journal’s scope or current priority themes
If the methodology doesn’t align with what the journal publishes.
If the contribution isn’t framed in a way that appeals to that journal’s readership
If the paper isn’t positioned in the ongoing scholarly conversation relevant to that journal
If the argument is poorly structured
If methods or results are not explained with precision
Reference formatting or journal style is not followed
Many papers describe findings but fail to clearly state what gap they are addressing, how their findings advance existing knowledge, and why their results matter at a conceptual or policy level.
Even if the study is sound, editors may reject when the design is not clearly justified, results are not explained bit by bit, assumptions, tests, and robustness checks are missing.
If the research replicates old work without adding new insight
If the research is based on outdated data or misses current debates,
Fayyaz Ahmad Siddiqui
03 December, 2025A deeply important article — thank you for bringing this issue to light. Far too often, unpublished studies from the Global South remain invisible, and as a result policies, funding, and global research priorities end up reflecting only a narrow slice of reality. This silencing of null, incremental, or locally-relevant research undermines scientific truth, skews evidence bases, and discourages early-career researchers from pursuing meaningful but non-glamorous work. As ACSE members, we must champion a culture of transparency — encouraging open access repositories, embracing negative or inconclusive results, and building institutional support for underrepresented scholars. Only then can global science become truly inclusive, equitable, and representative.
Dr Ameha Tessema
03 December, 2025Thanking the author, Maryam Sayab, the biggest challenges in the research industry that deter the valuable research article from visibility to research community and policy makers are the peer reviewer and the editor lack of in-depth knowledge of the subject matter, further to fixed APC which cannot affordable even though this can handle by journal editor for waiving according valuabilty of the article and the journal scope to which the article cannot fit in aim and target to the research ideas.
Hin Lyhour
04 December, 2025The article clearly shows how missing research affects not only science but also policy. We need to fix the barriers that stop studies from being published so all regions can benefit from fair and complete evidence
Afshin Maleki
01 December, 2025This issue represents a highly important yet often overlooked challenge in global research systems. In many countries of the Global South, including Iran, a significant portion of valuable research never reaches publication—not due to lack of quality, but because of structural barriers such as high article processing charges (APCs), limited access to international journals, insufficient mentoring and institutional support, and language challenges.
Moreover, the scientific publishing system often exhibits a strong cultural and institutional bias toward “positive” or highly novel results, which discourages researchers from publishing negative, inconclusive, or locally-focused studies—even when such results are critical for evidence-based decision-making. Consequently, the global scientific literature presents an incomplete and sometimes misleading picture of regional realities.
It is also important to note that political considerations can sometimes influence editors’ decisions to reject manuscripts quickly. Unfortunately, this is observed in some countries, including Iran. Political relations and tensions between governments can affect scientific and academic exchanges, indirectly creating barriers to publication.
The invisibility of these studies not only limits global knowledge production but also impacts national policy, funding priorities, academic evaluation systems, and the motivation of early-career researchers. In my view, promoting and supporting open data repositories, strengthening regional journals, providing professional editorial training, and encouraging the publication of all valid outcomes—including negative or inconclusive results—are key steps toward building a more inclusive, transparent, and balanced scientific system.
I appreciate the highlighting of this silent yet critical issue.