Comparing expert assessments of research credibility between the Global North and East Africa

This study investigates how expert assessments of the generalizability of behavioral science research vary across geographic and epistemic contexts. Using a form of structured peer review called the IDEA protocol, we use data from the repliCATS project (Global North) and a follow-up study conducted by Busara (East Africa), to compare how experts judge the credibility, and especially the generalizability, of 80 behavioral science papers, the vast majority of which originated from the Global North. Due to their greater familiarity with how other contexts might differ from Global North contexts, where the vast majority of behavioral science research is conducted, we expected that East African experts would express greater skepticism about the generalizability of these findings. Contrary to expectations, East African experts (n = 318) rated the papers as more credible on most metrics, including generalizability, than did the Global North experts (n = 384). We explore three interpretations of these findings: East African assessors possess unique contextual insights; Global North assessors apply stricter skepticism rooted in a broader crisis of confidence in behavioral science; or the comparison itself is invalid due to contextual mismatch.