Perceived Barriers for Accessing International Research Funding among Latin American Researchers

  1. Jesica Formoso
  2. Laura Acion
  3. Nicolas Palopoli
  4. Juan Pablo Barreyro

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Access to international funding is essential for sustaining research, yet researchers in Latin America face persistent inequities that constrain their competitiveness. This study aimed to identify perceived barriers and strategies to improve equitable access to international research funding. We employed a sequential mixed-methods design. In the qualitative phase, a virtual focus group with five researchers from Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, and Guatemala explored experiences with international grant applications. Thematic analysis revealed three overarching themes: (1) strategies and good practices; (2) barriers and structural constraints; and (3) recommendations for equity. Barriers included language and cultural differences, perceived bias from Global North funders, unrealistic infrastructural expectations, and limited opportunities for networking. These insights informed the design of a quantitative survey, which was completed by 253 researchers from 16 countries; 60.4% had applied to international calls and 43.6% reported receiving at least one grant. Across 668 reported applications, success rate was 40.6%. The most frequently endorsed barriers were economic costs of networking (92.3%), misalignment between eligibility criteria and local trajectories (80.8%), rhetorical differences in grant writing (75.3%), and self-perceptions of lower competitiveness (69.2%). Results highlight persistent structural, linguistic, and cultural barriers limiting equitable access. Suggested actions include context-sensitive training in grant writing, mentorship schemes, and the design of funding calls that explicitly account for the realities of low- and middle-income countries.

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/17619292.

    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.

  2. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/17513888.

    Policy Brief: Breaking Barriers to International Research Funding in Latin America

    Background

    Latin American researchers continue to face multiple systemic challenges when competing for international research funding. These barriers are not only financial but also structural, linguistic, and institutional. They create an uneven playing field in which talented scientists from the region often struggle to access opportunities that could expand their research impact and strengthen global collaboration.

    A recent mixed-methods study, combining an in-depth focus group with a regional survey of 202 participants from across Latin America, provides valuable insight into the nature of these barriers. The results reveal the many layers of disadvantage that shape the funding landscape and offer practical recommendations for both funders and institutions seeking to promote equity and inclusion in global research.

    Key Findings

    The study highlights that the most pressing challenge, identified by 92 percent of participants, is the high cost and limited access to international networking. Researchers described how scarce travel funds, limited institutional mobility programs, and the absence of structured collaboration opportunities restrict their ability to connect with global partners and co-develop competitive proposals.

    Equally significant is the issue of restrictive eligibility criteria, which 81 percent of respondents reported as a major obstacle. These criteria—often based on citizenship, institutional type, or administrative requirements—automatically exclude many researchers before the scientific merit of their proposals can even be assessed.

    Language and rhetorical differences emerged as another major challenge for 75 percent of participants. The dominance of English in grant writing, coupled with differences in scientific discourse and stylistic expectations, often disadvantages those trained in Spanish or Portuguese academic traditions. Many researchers noted that, despite strong ideas, they struggle to present proposals in the tone and structure expected by international reviewers.

    Another striking theme was the sense of self-perceived disadvantage and low competitiveness, reported by nearly 69 percent of participants. Many researchers feel discouraged from applying, believing their proposals are less likely to succeed than those from high-income countries.  This psychological barrier compounds structural inequities and limits participation.

    Administrative and legal obstacles also play a key role. Respondents described slow institutional processes, limited support from grant offices, and weak financial management systems that make it difficult to comply with international requirements. These gaps not only cause delays but also sometimes prevent institutions from accepting grants altogether.

    Finally, the survey revealed a regional imbalance in representation, with most respondents (around 62 percent) coming from Argentina. While this reflects the country's active research community, it also underscores disparities in capacity and access across Latin America, emphasizing the need for regionally balanced interventions.

    Recommendations for Funders and Institutions

    To address these challenges, the study proposes a coordinated response involving both funding agencies and research institutions. The first step is to adapt international calls to the realities of low- and middle-income countries. This means simplifying eligibility rules, recognizing diverse institutional models, and offering flexible overhead and administrative structures that reflect regional contexts.

    At the same time, it is essential to invest in capacity building for researchers. Funders and universities should create dedicated mentorship and peer review-training programs to help researchers strengthen their proposals and better understand the expectations of international review panels. In addition, structured funding readiness initiatives—pairing early-career scientists with experienced mentors—can build confidence and enhance success rates.

    A third priority is improving access to networking and collaboration. This includes providing travel grants, supporting virtual networking platforms, sponsoring partnership-building events, and encouraging South–South cooperation within Latin America. Strengthening regional collaboration networks can compensate for unequal access to traditional global funding hubs.

    Language equity must also become a central concern. Allowing proposal submissions in Spanish or Portuguese, accompanied by English summaries, would lower one of the steepest barriers faced by Latin American applicants. Offering editorial and translation assistance would further enhance competitiveness and ensure that strong scientific ideas are not lost in translation.

    Institutional capacity building is another essential pillar. Universities and research centers need stronger administrative systems, trained personnel, and simplified internal processes to manage international grants effectively. Shared templates, standardized documentation, and training for research managers could help reduce the administrative burden and improve compliance.

    Finally, equitable funding requires transparency and accountability. Funders should systematically monitor inclusion metrics—tracking who applies, who receives funding, and what factors influence these outcomes. Regularly publishing this data will help identify persistent inequities and guide evidence-based policy reform.

    Policy Message

    Equitable access to international research funding is not an act of generosity; it is a matter of scientific justice. Removing linguistic, administrative, and structural barriers will unlock the creativity and expertise of Latin American scientists and enable them to participate fully in shaping global scientific agendas. A more inclusive funding system benefits everyone: it enriches scientific collaboration, broadens perspectives, and accelerates innovation that addresses global challenges in health, environment, and sustainable development.

    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.

  3. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/17271587.

    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.

  4. Version published to 10.31222/osf.io/68ws5_v1 on OSF Preprints