Transforming COVID-19 Research Priorities for Sustainable Development in Africa

Abstract

This study provides a bibliometric analysis of African COVID-19 research outputs from 2019 to 2025, exploring trends in original research articles, citation performance, funding patterns, partnership networks, thematic areas, and alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Metadata retrieved from Web of Science™ and Scopus were examined utilizing statistical software (GraphPad Prism version 10.2.3), bibliometric mapping, and collaboration network visualization. Africa produced 14,561 original research articles (a global research output of 2.8%), with South Africa and Egypt accounting for 44.72% of original research articles. Research output and citation peaked in the year 2022 and declined from the year 2023, with the domination of medicine and associated health sciences areas, aligned with SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), demonstrating 54.4% of the research outputs. Notwithstanding various funding sources, less correlation occurred between original research articles and funding levels, underscoring the necessity for reinforced institutional capacity. Moreover, intra-African collaboration remained partial, with South Africa being at the forefront of cross-country collaboration. The findings unravel improvement and persevering gaps in African COVID-19 research, underlining the significance of impartial capacity building, diversified into under-represented SDGs, for instance SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 7 (Clean Energy), and purpose-built policy frameworks to strengthen pandemic preparedness and multidisciplinary resilience.

1. Introduction

Coronaviruses are a group of viruses causing a range of respiratory tract illnesses, from mild colds to severe conditions like Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV). A novel coronavirus (nCoV) is a newly identified strain that has not previously affected humans [1]. COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. The virus was first discovered in China in 2019 and has since spread globally, with about 778 million confirmed cases around the world resulting in approximately 7 million deaths and 9 million confirmed cases in Africa and about 175,000 deaths as of 22 June 2025 [2].

Many nations still have SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks, despite outstanding progress in clinical research that has advanced our understanding of the virus. The primary cause of these outbreaks is thought to be the emergence of viral mutants. As with other RNA viruses, SARS-CoV-2 is subject to genetic evolution and mutation accumulation, leading to mutant variants that may display unique traits from their parent strains. Throughout this pandemic, many SARS-CoV-2 variations have been discovered; however, only a small number of these have been designated as variants of concern (VOCs) [3,4]. The WHO’s most recent epidemiological announcement states that five SARS-CoV-2 VOCs have been identified since the pandemic’s start—namely, the Alpha variant, which was discovered in the United Kingdom in December 2020; Beta variant, which was discovered in South Africa in December 2020; the Gamma variant, which was reported in Brazil in January 2021; the Delta variant, which was discovered in India in December 2020; and lastly the Omicron variant, which was reported in South Africa in November 2021 [5].

The spread of COVID-19 worldwide, categorized by its high transmission rate and deadliness, led to the unfortunate loss of millions of lives [6]. This pandemic has shown liabilities in the global healthcare system when it comes to managing sudden and severe health threats. The COVID-19 pandemic had implications worldwide, mostly in public health, economic stability, and the development of remaining social inequalities [7,8]. In the African framework, these challenges were deepened by already strained healthcare organizations, limited research infrastructure, and inadequate access to resources. While global research achievements on COVID-19 have been extensive, the portrayal and contribution of African countries within the worldwide scientific landscape remain limited and uneven. Therefore, the next historical review section provides context for human infection by coronaviruses (CoVs). Subsequently, a bibliometric analysis section provides a deeper understanding of the COVID-19 research landscape of the African continent. Hence, we hypothesize that African scientific production on COVID-19 is positively correlated with international collaboration and external funding, yet remains limited in thematic diversity and alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) beyond health.

1.1. Historical Review

Human infection with coronaviruses (CoVs) was originally discovered in 1965 [9]. The H-CoV229E and CoV-NL63 are Alphacoronavirus genus pathogens that cause the common cold [10]. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 1 (SARS-CoV-1), MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2 are members of the Betacoronavirus genus and have caused a considerable number of deaths worldwide over the last two decades [11].

The SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes respiratory infections, was initially reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, in 2019, and was declared a pandemic on 11 March 2020 [12]. Before the COVID-19 epidemic in January 2020, many patients were associated with the Huanan seafood market, where they were exposed to wild animals and poultry. Although the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is unknown or still debatable, it is closely related to bat coronaviruses, with a 96% genetic similarity to the RaTG13 bat virus. Some research implies that the Malayan pangolin may have served as an intermediate host, as its coronaviruses are highly similar to SARS-CoV-2’s receptor-binding domain [13].

Coronavirus belongs to the family Coronaviridae, specifically the Coronavirinae subfamily, which includes four genera: Alphacoronavirus, Betacoronavirus, Gammacoronavirus, and Deltacoronavirus. These groups are classified based on their genetic composition and evolutionary relationships. SARS-CoV-2 is classified under the Betacoronavirus genus [14].

1.2. Epidemiology of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the global population, affecting nearly all aspects of daily life. The virus was discovered in late 2019 and immediately spread worldwide, prompting the World Health Organization to officially declare a pandemic on 11 March 2020 [12,15]. This global issue has created significant social, economic, and psychological challenges, with several governments implementing lockdowns and other efforts to slow the virus from spreading [15,16].

COVID-19 epidemiology is complicated because the virus is highly transmissible and can cause severe illness or death in some people. According to the most recent reported data by the World Health Organisation, an estimated 778 million confirmed cases and approximately 7 million deaths have been reported worldwide, with 9 million cases and 175,000 deaths in Africa. Higher mortality rates were found in countries such as the United States of America (1,200,000), Brazil (702,000), India (534,000), the Russian Federation (404,000), and Mexico (335,000) [2] (WHO, 2023).

The COVID-19 virus spreads by droplets, respiratory fluids, and contact with infected individuals, including asymptomatic carriers. Older people and people with pre-existing health disorders like hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease are more vulnerable to severe illness. The condition can cause severe pneumonia, sepsis, organ failure, and even death. Common symptoms of COVID-19 include fever, cough, and sore throat, and less common symptoms include muscle aches, fatigue, headache, loss of taste or smell, and shortness of breath, among others, with an incubation period ranging from 2 to 14 days, with an average of 5 days [2,17].

1.3. The Clinical Classification of COVID-19

COVID-19 has been detected/observed in people of all ages, from young to old. Although some people who have the illness develop symptoms and become ill, it has been discovered that some people who are infected do not experience any symptoms despite being afflicted. The infection could be asymptomatic or cause serious sickness. COVID-19 clinical severity is, therefore, divided into five classifications, which are asymptomatic, mild, moderate, severe, and critical [18]. The diagnostic criteria for each group are outlined in

Table 1. Clinical classification of COVID-19 symptoms.

Classification	Symptoms	Reference
Asymptomatic	No clinical symptoms in infected individuals	[18]
Mild	Infected individuals experience symptoms such as sore throat, cough, runny nose, sneezing, fever, fatigue, and myalgia	[19]
Moderate	Cough, regular fever, and pneumonia	[18]
Severe	Difficulty breathing, chest pain, loss of speech, death	[19]
Critical	Respiratory failure, shock, multiple organ dysfunction, and death	[19]

. Furthermore, long COVID, also known as Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), refers to prolonged symptoms that persist weeks or months after the initial COVID-19 infection, even in mild or asymptomatic cases [2]. Common symptoms include fatigue, breathing difficulties, chest pain, cognitive problems (“brain fog”), and joint or muscle pain, often involving multiple organ systems [17]. The condition is linked to immune dysregulation, persistent viral presence, and chronic inflammation. Additionally, some individuals develop new or worsened allergic responses after COVID-19, such as allergic rhinitis, urticaria, dermatitis, and food allergies [17]. These post-COVID allergies are believed to result from immune overactivation, disrupted mucosal barriers, and altered microbiota balance.

1.4. COVID-19 Structure and Proteins

SARS-CoV-2 is an enclosed virus that is either sphere-shaped or pleomorphic in form, with a length of 70 to 110 nm. It has a massive, unsegmented, single-stranded positive-sense RNA genome. SARS-CoV-2 has a genomic size of around 29.9 kb, similar to SARS-CoV (~29.7 kb) and MERS-CoV (~30.1 kb) [16,20], which comprises 14 open reading frames (ORFs). These ORFs encode non-structural proteins (NSPs) that aid in virus replication and assembly, as well as structural proteins like spike (S), envelope (E), membrane/matrix (M), and nucleocapsid (N), as well as secondary proteins [21,22].

The S proteins in the viral envelope form a crown-like shape that gives the virus its name (“corona”). The S protein is the most immunogenic component of the virus; hence, it is the primary target of neutralizing antibodies that prevent infection. The shape of the virion is determined by the M protein, the largest and most abundant structural protein. It also plays an important role in the emergence of viral particles from host cells. The E protein plays a critical role in virus infection and replication. The viral coat comprises three proteins: S, E, and M. The N protein is connected to genomic RNA and helps keep the genetic material within the envelope, which is critical for viral replication. The M protein collaborates with other structural proteins to finish the virion during its self-assembly [20].

1.5. The Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines

Since COVID-19 was proclaimed a pandemic in early 2020, vaccines targeted to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection have been recognized as the most effective technique for mitigating the outbreak. Vaccine development moved at an extraordinary speed, with development completed in just a few months. Despite unexpected alterations in the SARS-CoV-2 genome and variances in vaccination efficacy and neutralizing antibody rates against VOCs and VOIs, their principal goal of preventing severe illness has remained unchanged provisionally [23]. Several types of COVID-19 vaccines have been developed and used worldwide, including mRNA vaccines (e.g., Pfizer-BioNTech-New York City, United States and Moderna-Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States), viral vector vaccines (e.g., AstraZeneca-Cambridge, United Kingdom and Johnson & Johnson-Leiden, Netherlands), inactivated whole-virus vaccines (e.g., Sinovac-Beijing, China and Sinopharm-Beijing, China), and protein subunit vaccines (e.g., Novavax-Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States). Each type works by stimulating the immune system to recognize the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein or its components, thereby preventing severe disease [23].

In July 2021, more than 3 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses had been administered worldwide, with 19 vaccines licensed. Although vaccines are effective, their distribution has been inequitable, with only 0.9% of people in low-income countries receiving at least one dose. This gap must be bridged for improved worldwide control. Other issues include lower efficacy against certain variations and uncertainty about vaccine immunity persistence [24].

The distribution of COVID-19 vaccines in African countries has been notably slower than estimated. Even though worldwide efforts such as the COVAX program and the African Vaccine Acquisition Task Team have been made to ensure fair vaccine access, results have been dismal. By mid-2022, Africa hoped to achieve 60% coverage, but barely 5–10% of the population (24% in South Africa) received the first dose, compared to 60% in Europe. Wealthier countries prioritized vaccinating their populations, resulting in a substantial vaccine gap [19]. Furthermore, vaccine adoption rates have been low in various African nations. This situation is similar to the inequities observed during the HIV pandemic in the 1990s and 2000s, when life-saving antiretroviral medications were unavailable in Africa due to exorbitant prices, resulting in unnecessary deaths [25].

Despite successful COVID-19 vaccination programs being introduced around the world, progress in discovering antiviral therapies for COVID-19 has been limited/slow. The unequal distribution of vaccines, the development of vaccine resistance, and the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants with higher transmission rates and the ability to evade both vaccination and natural immunity underline the important need for antiviral medications to treat SARS-CoV-2 infections. Furthermore, uncertainties in vaccine effectiveness and immunogenicity have arisen due to multiple factors. These include genetic mutations in SARS-CoV-2 variants, which can reduce antibody neutralization, waning immunity over time, and differences in host immune responses related to age, comorbidities, or prior infection. Additionally, disparities in global vaccine distribution and hesitancy have slowed the achievement of herd immunity. Despite these challenges, vaccines remain highly effective in preventing hospitalization and death, though booster doses are recommended to sustain protection against emerging variants.

1.6. Potential Therapeutic Targets and Treatments

The structure of COVID-19 evolved due to mutations, making this virus more infectious and making it difficult to develop vaccinations [26]. According to research studies on COVID-19, the virus enters host cells through lipid molecules; therefore, targeting these lipids may be an effective strategy to stop the infection from spreading. Additionally, targeting specific COVID-19 enzymes such as papain-like protease (PLpro), structural proteins, chymotrypsin-like protease (3CLpro)/Main protease (Mpro), and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) can aid in the development of antiviral medicines [27].

The majority of COVID-19 patients experience mild to moderate symptoms and therefore can recover without antiviral drugs. However, some patients’ symptoms advance to severe respiratory difficulties and require antiviral treatment to lessen the intensity and length of their disease (Table 2) [28]. Remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, novaferon, and favipiravir are examples of commonly used antiviral drugs [27].

Medicinal plants have been a valuable source of prospective medications due to their extensive antiviral effects and may therefore contribute to the development of COVID-19 therapies (Table 2). Several medicinal plant extracts have been investigated for their effects on the cellular and molecular levels, with some indicating efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 in laboratory tests [29]. In addition, medicinal plants have emerged as promising complementary or alternative therapeutic sources. Many plant-derived compounds such as flavonoids, alkaloids, terpenoids, and polyphenols have demonstrated antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory properties against SARS-CoV-2 in in vitro and in silico studies [29]. While some herbal formulations and plant-based products have been used commercially in Africa and globally (e.g., Artemisia annua—based teas in Madagascar, traditional Chinese formulations like Lianhua Qingwen, and Indian Ayurvedic preparations), most still lack clinical validation and regulatory approval for COVID-19 treatment. Continued research and clinical trials are essential to confirm their safety, efficacy, and mechanisms of action for potential integration into modern therapeutic regimes.

Table 2. Antiviral drugs and plant-derived compounds under investigation in clinical trials for COVID-19 treatment.

Drug	Target	Reference
Antiviral drugs
Remdisivir	Inhibits RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.	[30]
Ribavirin	Inhibits the metabolism of RNA, which is essential for the proliferation and replication of the virus.	[31]
Novaferon	Inhibits the spread of COVID-19 in healthy cells by limiting viral replication in contaminated cells.	[30]
Lopinavir	Inhibits chymotrypsin-like protease enzyme (3CLpro), which is responsible for viral transcription and replication.	[32]
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir	Inhibits chymotrypsin-like protease enzyme (3CLpro).	[33]
Molnupiravir	Inhibits RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.	[34]
Plant-derived compounds
Quercetin	Inhibits 3CLpro, S-protein, PLpro, ACE2 and RdRp.	[35,36,37]
Artemisinin	Inhibits 3CLpro.	[38]
Kaempferol	Inhibits chymotrypsin-like protease enzyme (3CLpro), which is responsible for viral transcription and replication.	[39]
2,4-dihydroxycinnamic acid	Inhibits angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, a key component of the renin–angiotensin system, orchestrating fluid balance and blood pressure regulation.	[40]
Apigenin	Inhibits RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and 3CLpro.	[40]
Anacardic acid and Ginkgolic acid	Inhibits papain-like protease (PLpro) and 3CLpro.	[41]

Table 2. Antiviral drugs and plant-derived compounds under investigation in clinical trials for COVID-19 treatment.

Drug	Target	Reference
Antiviral drugs
Remdisivir	Inhibits RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.	[30]
Ribavirin	Inhibits the metabolism of RNA, which is essential for the proliferation and replication of the virus.	[31]
Novaferon	Inhibits the spread of COVID-19 in healthy cells by limiting viral replication in contaminated cells.	[30]
Lopinavir	Inhibits chymotrypsin-like protease enzyme (3CLpro), which is responsible for viral transcription and replication.	[32]
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir	Inhibits chymotrypsin-like protease enzyme (3CLpro).	[33]
Molnupiravir	Inhibits RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.	[34]
Plant-derived compounds
Quercetin	Inhibits 3CLpro, S-protein, PLpro, ACE2 and RdRp.	[35,36,37]
Artemisinin	Inhibits 3CLpro.	[38]
Kaempferol	Inhibits chymotrypsin-like protease enzyme (3CLpro), which is responsible for viral transcription and replication.	[39]
2,4-dihydroxycinnamic acid	Inhibits angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, a key component of the renin–angiotensin system, orchestrating fluid balance and blood pressure regulation.	[40]
Apigenin	Inhibits RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and 3CLpro.	[40]
Anacardic acid and Ginkgolic acid	Inhibits papain-like protease (PLpro) and 3CLpro.	[41]

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Extraction

The bibliometric analysis was conducted using the Web of Science™ Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics, Boston, MA, USA) and Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) databases, with metadata retrieved on 7 August 2025 (Figure 1). Original research articles published between 2019 and 2025 were only included in the bibliometric analysis. The keywords used for the search were “COVID-19” or “SARS-CoV-2” or “Coronavirus” or “2019-nCoV” or “Novel coronavirus” or “Coronavirus disease 2019”. Publications, for instance, editorial materials, review articles, early access articles, meeting abstracts, letters, proceedings papers, news items, and meeting reports were excluded to uphold a focus on peer-reviewed empirical research.

To contextualize the COVID-19 SDG profile, an additional dataset representing the broader African research landscape was extracted from the Web of Science™ Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics, Boston, MA, USA) and Scopus database (Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). All African-affiliated peer-reviewed publications published between 2019 and 2025 were retrieved using the Web of Science™ and Scopus “Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)”. The database automatically assigns each publication to relevant SDGs based on an established SDG classification algorithm.

The complete SDG distribution for the broader African research landscape is provided in

Table 3. Scholarly research by subject research areas aligned to the Sustainable Development Goals in Africa.

Research Area Category	Subject Area	Publications %	Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Social Sciences and Humanities	Social Sciences	14.51	SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 1 (No Poverty)
	Arts and Humanities	4.00	SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 4 (Quality Education)
	Business, Management, and Accounting	3.58	SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth),
	Economics, Econometrics, and Finance	2.72	SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 1 (No Poverty)
	Psychology	1.91	SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being)
	Decision Sciences	0.74	SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure)
Health and Life Sciences	Medicine	33.96	SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being)
	Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmaceutics	4.14	SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being)
	Nursing	4.01	SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being)
	Biochemistry, Genetics, and Molecular Biology	3.23	SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being)
	Health Professions	3.01	SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being)
	Immunology and Microbiology	2.44	SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being)
	Neuroscience	0.83	SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being)
	Veterinary	0.46	SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger),
	Dentistry	0.34	SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being)
Engineering and Technology	Engineering	3.92	SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure)
	Computer Science	2.81	SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure)
	Chemical Engineering	0.71	SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure)
	Energy	0.56	SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy)
Natural Sciences	Environmental Science	2.24	SDG 15 (Life on Land) and SDG 13 (Climate Action)
	Agricultural and Biological Sciences	1.29	SDG 15 (Life on Land) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)
	Earth and Planetary Sciences	0.65	SDG 15 (Life on Land), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), SDG 13 (Climate Action),
	Physics and Astronomy	0.65	SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure)
	Chemistry	1.43	SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure)
	Materials Science	1.22	SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure)
	Mathematics	1.53	SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) and SDG 4 (Quality Education),
Multidisciplinary Fields	Multidisciplinary	3.10	Multiple SDGs are reliant on the study focus area

.

The bibliometric analysis reflected multiple indicators, comprising the total citations, total number of publications, h-index, predominant research topics, supporting funding agencies, and placement with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

2.2. Data Analysis and Visualizations

Retrieved metadata records were exported in CSV and BibTeX formats for further analysis. The data were then examined using the Bibliometric online platform (http://bibliometric.com, accessed on 7 August 2025, Bibliometric Network, Unknown city, Sweden) to evaluate collaboration networks among African countries and regions involved in the COVID-19 study. After the collaboration networks evaluation, the dataset was then structured in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) for further network visualization. Citation metrics, comprising total citations and h-index values, were computed from the exported database and confirmed using R scripts (version 4.3.2, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). The dataset of the total citations, total number of publications, predominant research topics, and supporting funding agencies was summarized using percentages and averages with standard deviations where appropriate. The dataset was examined with GraphPad Prism version 10.2.3 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA) for statistical analysis. Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was utilized to analyze the associations between research publication and citation counts, as well as among publication output and funding counts, across African countries. Coefficient values researching −1 or +1 indicate stronger positive or negative associations, respectively. Prior to applying the t-test, data normality was verified using the Shapiro–Wilk test (W = 0.972, p = 0.742). Paired t-tests were utilized to compare annual means of publication and citation counts across the 2019–2025 period to assess statistically significant changes in research output trends. Paired t-tests were used to determine significant differences, with p-values < 0.05, and the coefficient of determination (R²) was used to analyze the second-degree polynomial.

3. Results

3.1. Publication Trends and Citation Performance

Globally, a total of 526,277 original research articles focusing on COVID-19 research from 160 countries were documented. However, 14,561 original research articles were published in 51 African nations, as indicated in Figure 2. In the early year of 2019, the original research output from Africa was lower (n = 13; 0.08%) due to the recency of the outbreak, but it began to increase in 2020, reaching its highest peak in 2022 (n = 3759; 25.82%) (Figure 2). The second-degree polynomial also predicted a quadratic trend increase (R² = 0.964) to a peak in 2022, with a steady decrease in original research publications from the year period of 2023 to 2025. The original research article’s average was 2080 ± 1331 from the period 2019 to 2025. However, the citation average was 4856 ± 4489 from the period of 2019 to 2025, with a citation performance total of 33,994 counts. In terms of citation performance, the second-degree polynomial analysis (R² = 0.64) also predicted a peak in 2022 (n = 10,677; 31.41%), with a sharper post-peak decrease than the original research articles count. The paired t-test results indicated a statistically significant difference in research output between 2021 and 2022 (t(6) = 4.176, p = 0.006), confirming 2022 as the peak publication year. Moreover, a Q–Q plot demonstrating normality of residuals has been included in the Supplementary Materials (Figure S1), From the viewpoint of the Pearson correlation coefficient (r = 0.609; p = 0.146; 95% CI: −0.21 to 0.92), there was no correlation between the number of citations and the published original research articles. Additionally, the overall African h-index is 62 in the research area of coronavirus disease-19.

3.2. African Countries’ Research on COVID-19

Despite the global scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, African countries account for merely 2.8% of the volume of original research on the disease. Among all the contributing African countries, South Africa ranked top 22 globally with the highest record of publications (n = 4026), which accounts for 27.69% of African original research publications on COVID-19. Emerging as the most significant contributor among the African countries. The second highest is Egypt (n = 2474), accounting for 17.02% of the total publications’ contributions. These two countries dominate the publishing landscape, accounting for 44.72% of all research publications. Nigeria (n = 1712; 11.77%), Morocco (n = 1048; 7.20%), and Ethiopia (n = 1043; 7.17%) are among the top five highest contributors. Among the 54 African countries, only six, Comoros, São Tomé and Príncipe, Eritrea, Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, and Western Sahara, recorded no original research publications associated with COVID-19 for the examined study period (Figure 3).

The total COVID-19 publication counts were also normalized by population size, generating a metric of publications per million inhabitants for each African country (Figure 4). This analysis reveals that, although South Africa and Egypt lead in absolute publication numbers, smaller nations for instance Mauritius, Tunisia, Ghana, and Namibia demonstrate high research productivity when adjusted for population. More specifically, South Africa recorded around 68 publications per million inhabitants, followed by Mauritius (≈38 per million) and Tunisia (≈52 per million). Countries including Namibia (≈25 per million) and Morocco (≈28 per million) also ranked within the upper tier of normalized output. However, several populous countries such as Ethiopia and Nigeria exhibited lower per capita publication rates in spite of substantial absolute contributions.

3.3. Subject Research Areas Related to Sustainable Development Goals

According to Table 3 and Figure 5, an analysis of research publication productivity across several academic disciplines in Africa displays noticeable attention in the Health and Life Sciences. This category holds the largest proportion of research publications, with the subject area of medicine alone encompassing 33.96% of total productivity. Additional significant contributors within the health and life sciences category include biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology (3.23%); nursing (4.01%); pharmacology, toxicology, and pharmaceutics (4.14%); and other fields such as, for instance, neuroscience (0.83%), health professions (3.01%), immunology and microbiology (2.44%) echo a wider engagement within biomedical sciences. While dentistry (0.34%) and veterinary science (0.46%) display relatively lower publication occurrences.

The second most prolific category is the social sciences and humanities, consisting of a collective portion of 27.46%. In this category, te social sciences account for the largest part with 14.51%, following arts and humanities (4.00%); business, management and accounting (3.58%); and economics, econometrics, and finance (2.72%). The existence of psychology (1.91%) and decision sciences (0.74%) underscores an interdisciplinary engagement that links qualitative and quantitative analysis.

However, the natural sciences category demonstrates a larger pattern of distributed original research publications across various disciplines. In this category, environmental science (2.24%), mathematics (1.53%), and chemistry (1.43%) are represented as preeminent productive areas. Additional fields that contribute to a diversified hitherto less prominent output include agricultural and biological sciences (1.29%), materials science (1.22%), and earth and planetary sciences (0.65%).

The engineering and technology category accounts for a modest quantity of publications, with computer science (2.81%) and engineering (3.92%) presented as the main areas of focus. Subfields, for instance energy (0.56%) and chemical engineering (0.71%), account for less. Multidisciplinary research accounts for the total publications of 3.10%, highlighting the growing status of cross-disciplinary alliances.

Moreover, these African countries contribute to COVID-19 research publications that prioritize the SDG for Good Health and Well-Being (SDG 3); followed by SDG 9 for Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure; SDG 10 for Reduced Inequalities; and SDG 1 for No Poverty (Figure 4). SDG 3 dominates by approximately 54.4% of total research publications, mainly under medicine (33.96%), nursing (4.01%), and pharmacology (4.14%), with additional clinical subfields. SDG 9 follows with an estimated of 19.8%, under the fields of applied biochemistry, engineering, and computer science. SDG 1 and SDG 10 together account for 17.2%, engaging social science in the pandemic’s socio-economic outcomes. A comparison between COVID-19-related publications and Africa’s overall SDG-mapped research output shows a marked shift in thematic focus toward SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being). COVID-19 publications showed a high concentration in SDG 3, at over 54.4%. This indicates a substantial increase in health-focused scientific activity during the pandemic, accompanied by relatively lower representation of other SDGs, such as SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 13 (Climate Action). Table 3 provides the full comparative SDG distribution.

3.4. Financial Support for Original Research Publication

In the context of financial support for original research publication noticeably there is lack of association trend as projected in Figure 6, between the total number of original research publications and awarded funds for each African country. Moreover, the Pearson correlation coefficient value provides a confirmation regarding the correlation (r = 0.892) with a significant difference (p = 0.0001; R² = 0,7947; 95% CI: 0.75–0.96) amongst the total number of original research publications and awarded funds for each African country. The top five most-funded countries are South Africa (n = 1716; 32.66%), Ghana (n = 848; 16.14%), Egypt (n = 609; 11.59%), Uganda (n = 330; 6.28%), and Nigeria (n = 290; 5.52%) (Figure 6). The National Research Foundation has supported most research projects (n = 301; 2.06%), underscoring its dominant role in research support within South Africa. This is in close succession with the National Institutes of Health (n = 267; 1.83%) and UK Research and Innovation (n = 220; 1.51%), the South African Medical Research Council (n = 170; 1.17%), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (n = 125, 0.867%), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (n = 118; 0.81%) as shown by their highest number (≥100) of record counts in Figure 6. The intermediate funders (30–99) includes intercontinental multilateral bodies (e.g., the European Commission (n = 83; 0.57%), Wellcome Trust (n = 77; 0.53%), World Health Organization (n = 63; 0.43%), and various African universities (e.g., the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (n = 47; 0.32%); the University of Johannesburg (n = 46; 0.36%); and the University of Pretoria (n = 45; 0.31%). The lower funders (<30) also include African universities (e.g., Tshwane University of Technology (n = 12; 0.08%) and University of Cape town (n = 11; 0.08%), Hawassa University (n = 11; 0.08%), Tanta University (n = 9; 0.06%), philanthropic foundations (e.g., the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation (n = 25; 0.17%) and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (n = 16; 0.11%), and corporate sponsors (e.g., Pfizer (n = 19; 0.13%), AstraZeneca (n = 11; 0.075%), and GlaxoSmithKline (n = 7; 0.04%) (Figure 7). Overall, the lack of a strong association between the total number of original research publications and awarded research funds across African countries reflects persistent inequalities in research financing and capacity. Although South Africa, Ghana, Egypt, Uganda, and Nigeria receive the majority of research funding, many other African nations remain underfunded, limiting their ability to produce and publish original research at competitive levels.

3.5. Intra-African Collaboration

The inter-country partnerships across the African continent are demonstrated in Figure 8. The data show that South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, Morocco, and Ethiopia are amongst the prominent African nations involved in partnership research with other African countries. Notably, South Africa displays the top tier of intra-African collaboration, developing partnerships with a wide range of African countries. The strongest bilateral alliances relating to South Africa are noted with Nigeria (n = 193), Zimbabwe (n = 131), and Ghana (n = 64).

4. Discussion

Amidst the African context, enhancing research excellence has developed to be a focal point of Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) policies to address key national priorities [41,42]. Thus, this study’s findings yield valuable perspectives into the direction of African COVID-19 research output between 2019 and 2025. According to the analysis of original research publications, Africa has contributed to the worldwide body of COVID-19 research; however, its contribution is still quite low when compared to other continents. Moreover, only 14,561 of the 526,277 total original research articles analyzed were from African countries, highlighting the gap in worldwide research output. The trend of published papers throughout the years indicates that research output in Africa was poor at the beginning of the year 2019 (0.08%), most likely due to the disease’s novelty [43] and the need for time to organize research efforts. However, as the pandemic advanced, African research contributions in terms of COVID-19-related research increased, peaking at 25.82% in the year 2022. This development is consistent with the increased worldwide research interest and funding agencies providing opportunities during the pandemic’s peak [44]. The decrease in publications after 2022 may indicate a shift in research objectives as the pandemic impact faded and shifts in funding priorities [45,46].

In addition, the findings reinforce a substantial involvement of African nations in COVID-19 original research, with 51 out of 54 countries providing contributions to the scholarly discourse. This widespread engagement demonstrates a promising trajectory of scientific responsiveness to the pandemic across the African continent, signifying that the disaster catalyzed research activity in spite of the fact that countries have historically lower research output. Nonetheless, the disparate distribution is observed. Egypt and South Africa are cooperatively accountable for 44.72% of the continent’s total COVID-19 original research outputs, a domination that underscores their recognized research capacity, access to funding, and infrastructure. This aligns with previous studies, signifying that countries with research funding access and infrastructure that is better developed, together with stronger international partnerships, tend to produce more scientific research publications [47,48,49,50]. In South Africa, the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET)’s 2013 White Paper continues to emphasize the need for international and research partnerships in order to enhance knowledge production and to expand innovation [51]. While South Africa and Egypt are leading in regional partnerships, generally, intra-African collaboration remains limited. Encouragement of cross-border knowledge sharing and regional research hubs collaborations is vital to strengthen Africa’s scientific sovereignty and pandemic resilience [52,53]. To contextualize Africa’s COVID-19 research productivity, we normalized outputs against population size. While South Africa and Egypt maintained their leadership in absolute publication counts, smaller nations, for instance Mauritius, Tunisia, Ghana, and Namibia, represented disproportionately high research productivity comparative to the sizes of their populations. This discovery underscores that scientific excellence in COVID-19 research was not limited to the continent’s largest economies. The normalization by population also exposed that various highly populated countries, such as Ethiopia and Nigeria, produced fewer publications per capita, displaying capacity and infrastructure disparities compared to limited research engagement. Overall, these relative comparisons underscore the rising diversification of Africa’s research landscape and signal the potential of smaller, alert scientific systems to contribute meaningfully to regional and global knowledge production when suitable provision mechanisms are in place.

According to recent data, France had about 1471 publications per million inhabitants in 2023 [54,55,56]. Brazil’s rate was approximately 306 publications per million inhabitants in the reported year [56,57,58]. In comparison, South Africa’s peer-normalized output in our analysis was approximately 68 publications per million, albeit for the COVID-19 research corpus only. While total output remains lower, South Africa’s normalized rate suggests it is approaching middle-income nation levels when focused on pandemic-related contributions.

In addition, this research trend can be further explained by several aspects which embrace the fact that South Africa and Egypt are both ranked the first uppermost countries in the African continent consisting with the highest gross domestic product (GDP) of 410.34 billion U.S. dollars and 347.34 billion U.S. dollars, respectively, in the year 2025 [59]. It was further documented statistically that South Africa and Egypt were estimated to hit the highest gross domestic expenditure on research and development (GERD) on the African continent, with 0.85% of GDP (2022 fiscal year) and 0.72% of GDP (2022 fiscal year), respectively [59]. The African continent is still considered to have the lowest domestic spending on GERD globally. Moreover, it was recommended by the African Union that at least all countries in Africa should devote 1% of their GDP to research and development spending [60].

Interestingly, notwithstanding the fact that the distribution of funders in this study signifies a multilayered funding ecosystem wherein international donors, national agencies, multilateral organizations, the private sector, and the universities altogether contributed to the sustainment of African research related to COVID-19, a lack of correlation between original research publication output and funding was revealed. This reinforces the dispute that research funding alone is insufficient when not coincident with institutional capacity and regional research ecosystems [61]. South Africa, Ghana, Egypt, Uganda, and Nigeria are the top five most-funded African countries by diverse funding agencies internationally and domestically. Despite Uganda’s and Ghana’s higher funding opportunities, these countries produced fewer original research publication outputs when compared to other higher producing African countries (Egypt, Nigeria, Morocco, and Ethiopia), further emphasizing the need for institutional capacity and training.

This study also draws special attention to the citation analysis, which highlights the lack of correlation between the number of citations and the published research outputs. However, analysis in this study also demonstrated an increase in citation performance between 2020 and 2024, with the highest peak in the year 2022. Culminating in a lesser overall African h-index of 62 in the research area of coronavirus disease-19, in contrast to other continents. This indicates the necessity of producing more original research publications and aiming for manuscript submission to the indexed journals.

Nonetheless, the focus of this research in disciplines such as, for instance, the social sciences and humanities, health and life sciences, engineering and technology, the natural sciences, and multidisciplinary fields, exemplifies a targeted and reflexive scientific response to sudden pandemic intimidations. Though the rudimentary representation in the biophysics and virology disciplines underlines the necessity for wider interdisciplinary inclusion. This resonates with earlier bibliometric analyses, which highlighted the significance of basic science research, for instance, virus structure and host–pathogen interactions, in response to pandemic readiness [62].

The bibliometric delivery of COVID-19-associated research in Africa from 2019 to 2025 unveils a noticeable thematic focus in a subcategory of SDGs, indicating broader systemic and instant public health emergency difficulties. The overwhelming dominance of SDG 3 validates that African research output during the pandemic was mainly focused on mitigating the direct health effects of SARS-CoV-2 [63,64]. Furthermore, when compared with Africa’s broader research landscape, where SDG 3 typically accounts for approximately 25–30% of all scholarly outputs, our findings demonstrate a substantial pandemic-driven shift in thematic priorities. COVID-19–related research showed a proportion more than double this (54.4%), emphasizing the redirection of scientific attention and funding toward immediate health needs during the pandemic [65]. Although this focus supports global trends [66,67], it also promotes unique regional consequences. For instance, African health systems still deal with a co-occurrence of communicable and non-communicable diseases, implying that COVID-19 research overlapped with present agendas of public health, for instance, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS control [68].

Nonetheless, the linked SDGs present an interrelated nature, implying that health impact cannot be separated from infrastructure development, environmental sustainability, and poverty reduction. The attendance of research to SDG 1 and SDG 9 signifies the engagement of African scholars in multisectoral pandemic response, though the intensity differs by objective. Thus, forthcoming research policy ought to strive for better equilibrium, encourage investment for the category of under-represented SDGs, for instance, SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 7 (Clean Energy), which feature in this category despite their indirect relations to pandemic resilience. Furthermore, the persistent demand for equitable access to clean water and dependable energy in Africa [69] underpins the imperative of the formulation and implementation of the proposed forthcoming research policy.

In summary, between 2019 and 2025, African researchers made significant contributions to global COVID-19 knowledge through 14,561 original publications that advanced understanding of the virus’s epidemiology, genomics, therapeutics, and socio-economic impacts. Although representing a small fraction of global output, these studies, led mainly by South Africa and Egypt, were pivotal in identifying new variants (such as Beta and Omicron), improving low-cost diagnostics, exploring plant-based antivirals, and examining vaccine responses and health inequities within African contexts. The findings not only informed global pandemic management but also strengthened Africa’s capacity in genomic surveillance and One Health research. However, disparities in funding, infrastructure, and institutional capacity persist, underscore the need for equitable investment and stronger intra-African collaboration. Overall, Africa’s COVID-19 research has enhanced global scientific understanding, promoted innovation in resource-limited settings, and positioned the continent as an emerging leader in health research and pandemic resilience.

Recommendations for the proposed research policy

• Requirements for Cross-SDG Funding

Funding agencies must ensure research proposals address a minimum of two SDGs in a consolidated framework. Cross-SDG funding is increasingly recognized as essential because it promotes integrated and sustainable development. By financing projects that address multiple interconnected goals such as health, education, climate, and poverty this ensures that progress in one area reinforces others. Evidence from global and regional initiatives shows that such funding enhances impact, efficiency, and resilience, while reducing resource duplication. Overall, cross-SDG funding enables a holistic approach to achieving the 2030 Agenda, supporting innovation and long-term sustainability across sectors.

• Prioritization of Grant Calls for Underrepresented SDGs

Introduction of targeted grant calls for COVID-19 interrelated research that explicitly integrates SDG 7 and SDG 14, to expand the depiction of <1% to a noticeable size of the share of the total outputs.

• Monitoring and Reporting

Establishment of an African continental SDG research outlook within the context of the African Union’s STISA-2024 framework, monitoring SDG-linked publication shares per annum for a funding rebalancing guide.

Additionally to the proposal of COVID-19 research policy recommendations for Africa, African research and academic institutions must foster self-determination and sustainable funding mechanisms by means of philanthropic aid and governmental provisions. This autonomy will enable African scholars to clarify and strive for contextually appropriate research agendas, whereby the reduction in dependence on external funding bodies and positioning research outputs in alignment with local requirements. The African Union’s devotion to allocating 1% of GDP to GERD must be fully honored; therefore, it must also be purposefully guided toward under-represented SDG areas.

Furthermore, it is crucial to integrate capacity building to develop innovative collaborative research models that foster full-bodied partnerships at global, continental, and regional levels. These models ought to be reinforced by investments in research infrastructure, guaranteeing equitable participation that covers various scientific disciplines. Even though the acute phase of COVID-19 might have passed, continual research into its multifaceted consequences persists to be crucial, not merely for pandemic preparedness but also for developing a cohesive SDGs-allied research ecosystem that can be future-oriented to global issues with agility and resilience.

5. Conclusions

African COVID-19 research (2019–2025) displays prominent advancement and persevering gaps in terms of publication scale, thematic diversity, and collaboration. Thus, the new stage of African COVID-19 research policy ought to be institutionally reinforced to obtain financial autonomy, infrastructure resilience, equitable capacity building, and collaborative depth systematization, and also to be strategically diversified, to prioritize underrepresented SDGs. This unified approach can lead to the transformation of the present adaptive research landscape into an all-encompassing, progressive framework that has the capabilities of provoking the multifaceted threat of future environmental and health disasters.

Study Limitation

Citation counts and h-index estimates are sensitive to time and might fall short of capturing the long-term outcomes of current research publications.