ABSTRACT
To explore the effects of climate change on malaria and 20 neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), and potential effect amelioration through mitigation and adaptation, we searched for papers published from January 2010 to October 2023. We descriptively synthesised extracted data. We analysed numbers of papers meeting our inclusion criteria by country and national disease burden, healthcare access and quality index (HAQI), as well as by climate vulnerability score. From 42 693 retrieved records, 1543 full-text papers were assessed. Of 511 papers meeting the inclusion criteria, 185 studied malaria, 181 dengue and chikungunya and 53 leishmaniasis; other NTDs were relatively understudied. Mitigation was considered in 174 papers (34%) and adaption strategies in 24 (5%). Amplitude and direction of effects of climate change on malaria and NTDs are likely to vary by disease and location, be non-linear and evolve over time. Available analyses do not allow confident prediction of the overall global impact of climate change on these diseases. For dengue and chikungunya and the group of non-vector-borne NTDs, the literature privileged consideration of current low-burden countries with a high HAQI. No leishmaniasis papers considered outcomes in East Africa. Comprehensive, collaborative and standardised modelling efforts are needed to better understand how climate change will directly and indirectly affect malaria and NTDs.
ABSTRACT
In light of global environmental crises and the need for sustainable development, the fields of public health and environmental sciences have become increasingly interrelated. Both fields require interdisciplinary thinking and global solutions, which is largely directed by scientific progress documented in peer-reviewed journals. Journal editors play a critical role in coordinating and shaping what is accepted as scientific knowledge. Previous research has demonstrated a lack of diversity in the gender and geographic representation of editors across scientific disciplines. This study aimed to explore the diversity of journal editorial boards publishing in environmental science and public health. The Clarivate Journal Citation Reports database was used to identify journals classified as Public, Environmental, and Occupational (PEO) Health, Environmental Studies, or Environmental Sciences. Current EB members were identified from each journal's publicly available website between 1 March and 31 May 2021. Individuals' names, editorial board roles, institutional affiliations, geographic locations (city, country), and inferred gender were collected. Binomial 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the proportions of interest. Pearson correlations with false discovery rate adjustment were used to assess the correlation between journal-based indicators and editorial board characteristics. Linear regression and logistic regression models were fitted to further assess the relationship between gender presence, low- and middle-income country (LMIC) presence and several journal and editor-based indicators. After identifying 628 unique journals and excluding discontinued or unavailable journals, 615 journal editorial boards were included. In-depth analysis was conducted on 591 journals with complete gender and geographic data for their 27,772 editors. Overall, the majority of editors were men (65.9%), followed by women (32.9%) and non-binary/other gender minorities (0.05%). 75.5% journal editorial boards (n = 446) were composed of a majority of men (>55% men), whilst only 13.2% (n = 78) demonstrated gender parity (between 45-55% women/gender minorities). Journals categorized as PEO Health had the most gender diversity. Furthermore, 84% of editors (n = 23,280) were based in high-income countries and only 2.5% of journals (n = 15) demonstrated economic parity in their editorial boards (between 45-55% editors from LMICs). Geographically, the majority of editors' institutions were based in the United Nations (UN) Western Europe and Other region (76.9%), with 35.2% of editors (n = 9,761) coming solely from the United States and 8.6% (n = 2,373) solely from the United Kingdom. None of the editors-in-chief and only 27 editors in total were women based in low-income countries. Through the examination of journal editorial boards, this study exposes the glaring lack of diversity in editorial boards in environmental science and public health, explores the power dynamics affecting the creation and dissemination of knowledge, and proposes concrete actions to remedy these structural inequities in order to inform more equitable, just and impactful knowledge creation.
