Write a comment

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The authors clearly highlighted the aims/objectives of their study as seen in the last paragraph of the introduction. The objectives stated were (1) to identify the factors that constrain equitable access to funding opportunities and (2) to generate evidence that can inform the development of context-sensitive strategies and training initiatives to strengthen regional research competitiveness.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

Identifying the barriers from experienced researchers from different Latin American countries by means of the qualitative approach, using focus group discussions (FGDs), informed the instruments which were used in the quantitative component. The eligibility criteria highlight the richness of research experience needed to identify the barriers that the authors were investigating. Recommendation/Concern(s): The methods are highly appropriate; however, (1) authors should consider including standard parameters for survey instrument validation after piloting, and (2) reporting the limitation of reaching thematic saturation, for the FGD, given that they only did one. An arising concern is that the FGD conducted only included five participants, which does not meet the criteria of 8 to 15 participants. Authors can consider calling it an expert panel discussion or a dialogue because the number of people and composition does not matter as they only require individuals knowledgeable about the subject.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Highly supported

Generally, the conclusions are consistent throughout the paper. Important to note, authors acknowledged the over-representation of Argentina (62.38% participants) which has potential to reduce regional generalizability.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Somewhat appropriate and clear

Two concerns that arise: (1) on the graphs (figure 2 and 3) it would be helpful to the readers to mention the denominators which were used, and (2) there isn't much of subgroup analysis for gender and socioeconomic status which is important for this study. Side note: Is the placement of the supplementary table in the results section appropriate? It may disrupt the flow and readability of the preprint. It would be appropriate to add it at the end. This is up to the authors' discretion.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Very clearly

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

Authors gave evidence on the existing barriers which are important in advancing knowledge and informing context-sensitive strategies and training initiatives to strengthen regional research competitiveness. We recommend authors to consider the highlighted recommendations.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

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