Global in Name Only? Mapping the Uneven Architecture of Implementation Science

Implementation science is often described as a global field, but it is unclear whether its structure genuinely reflects shared participation and leadership across regions. This study examines the global architecture of implementation science along four dimensions: geographic inclusion, structural position in collaboration networks, epistemic equity, and agenda-setting power. A bibliometric and network analysis was conducted on 5,461 PubMed-indexed implementation science articles published between 2006 and February 2024. Country affiliations were cleaned and linked to World Bank income classifications, and a country-level co-authorship network was created to calculate centrality metrics, identify collaboration clusters, and test network resilience through simulated removal of major hubs. Results show rapid growth in publication volume and contributions from 139 countries, but with significant concentration in high-income countries (HICs), which account for the vast majority of country–article pairings and dominate all centrality measures. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) contribute a small share of publications, rarely form independent collaboration clusters, and are largely absent from South–South networks. Removing the top five HIC hubs reduces network density by 25%, indicating structural vulnerability and limited multicentricity. These patterns suggest that implementation science is global in reach but not yet global in influence or agenda-setting. The discussion outlines specific implications for funders, journals, professional societies, and research teams seeking to build a more distributed, resilient, and equitable global implementation science ecosystem.