Avalilação PREreview de Perceived Barriers for Accessing International Research Funding among Latin American Researchers

This paper touched the structural and perceived barriers faced by Latin American researchers in securing international funding. It employs a sequential mixed-methods design to explore these issues, drawing on a focus group and a survey to identify themes and quantify barriers. The study's emphasis on amplifying voices from the Global South is commendable, and it contributes to ongoing discussions about inequities in global research ecosystems.

The sequential mixed-methods design is a strength in theory, as the qualitative phase informs the quantitative one. The focus group includes only five participants from four countries, all in biomedical-related fields with 3–20 years of postdoctoral experience and a demonstrated interest in "fundraising, capacity building, and community development." This narrow eligibility criteria introduces selection bias, favoring researchers already engaged in equity-focused networks. Snowball sampling exacerbates this, potentially creating an echo chamber of similar perspectives. As a result, the themes may not reflect broader experiences, such as those of early-career researchers outside biomedicine or from underrepresented countries.

The quantitative analysis is purely descriptive (frequencies, means, SDs, 95% CIs), with no tests for associations (e.g., chi-square for barriers by gender/country, regression for success rate predictors). I would suggest to add in association statistics analysis. This is a missed opportunity in a mixed-methods study, as it prevents exploring whether barriers vary by demographics. No inter-coder reliability (e.g., kappa scores) is reported, despite multiple authors. It would be good to supplement it back to the manuscript.

There are some areas that need further clarification. "International funding" is not explicitly defined — does it include bilateral (e.g., EU-Latin America) or only Global North calls? "Success rate" is self-reported, but unclear if it includes all applications or only competitive ones.

Some potential selection bias should be addressed in the Discussion. Dissemination via academic networks, mailing lists, and social media favors digitally connected, funding-aware researchers. Those facing the most severe barriers may not have participated, leading to an optimistic bias in reported success rates.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.