77%
reported funding as a significant or major challenge
Sumud Labs survey
Survey Findings
These findings identify the blockers that keep Global South academics from equitable access to science and the resources needed to do science. Read together, the plots point to a practical agenda: lower material barriers, reduce publishing gatekeeping, and build collaborations where local expertise has power.
77%
identified publishing fees and costs as a high-pressure burden
79%
welcomed Global North collaboration when it benefits their work
Move resources first
Funding, equipment, literature access, and protected time are not side issues. They define whether researchers can ask ambitious questions, run reliable experiments, and stay visible in the field.
Treat publishing as infrastructure
Fees, journal access, fit with Global North trends, and perceived bias turn publishing into a gatekeeping system. Equitable access means reducing the cost and legitimacy tests attached to publication.
Build collaborations that recognize local expertise
Respondents largely welcome collaboration, but recognition feels less secure. Useful partnerships need willing partners, shared agenda-setting, and visible respect for local knowledge.
What the plots show
A blocker map for more equitable science.
The survey does not describe a lack of ambition among Global South researchers. It describes systems that make ambition more expensive, slower to publish, harder to connect, and less likely to be recognized on its own terms.
1
Resource access
The main blockers are material, not motivational.
The largest burdens cluster around funding, publishing, and equipment access. Time constraints and institutional support follow close behind, which suggests that researchers are navigating a stack of constraints rather than a single missing service.
What this should unblock
An equity agenda has to start by lowering the cost of doing science: grants, instruments, subscriptions, methods support, and administrative capacity.
2
Publishing pressure
Cost is the sharpest publishing barrier, but fit and bias widen the gap.
Publication fees sit alone in the high-pressure corner of the chart. Below that, respondents point to perceived bias and pressure to fit Global North research trends, showing that publishing barriers are both financial and epistemic.
What this should unblock
Removing blockers means supporting fees and access while also expanding what counts as rigorous, relevant chemistry knowledge.
3
Collaboration friction
Collaboration barriers appear before, during, and after the partnership.
The journey map shows that logistical constraints matter, especially travel, but the bottleneck starts earlier with finding contacts, lack of collaborator interest, and unequal power dynamics.
What this should unblock
A useful collaboration program should broker introductions, fund mobility, and set norms for shared ownership before projects begin.
4
Recognition
Researchers want collaboration, but recognition is not guaranteed.
Respondents strongly agree that Global North collaboration can benefit their research. Confidence drops when asked whether local knowledge, methodologies, or research questions are valued by the Global North chemistry community.
What this should unblock
Equitable collaboration must make recognition explicit: local questions, methods, authorship, and leadership should be designed into the work.
5
Program design
The strongest program signal points to mentorship and practical skill-sharing.
Ranked priorities split between first-choice demand and broad support. Skill-sharing webinars attract the strongest first-choice pull, while a mentorship hub has the broadest top-tier support.
What this should unblock
The program path is pragmatic: pair mentorship with practical training, then connect people to internships, grant support, and matchmaking where demand is clear.
The program mandate is to turn access into capacity.
The findings point toward direct interventions: resource support, publishing assistance, mentorship, collaboration brokerage, and structures that protect Global South research questions from being treated as peripheral.
Fund the conditions for research, not just finished outputs.
Support publishing without forcing assimilation to external agendas.
Make local knowledge visible in collaboration design, authorship, and leadership.