# From pathogens to policy: using network analysis to map the knowledge base on human–zoonotic disease dynamics underpinning global pandemic policy

## TL;DR

This study maps how scientific research on zoonotic diseases is used in global pandemic policies, finding that policies rely on a narrow and selective evidence base.

## Contribution

The novel contribution is the use of citation network analysis to compare zoonotic disease research cited in policies with broader scientific literature.

## Key findings

- Only 19% of references in six global policy reports pertained to zoonotic disease dynamics.
- Scientific literature on zoonotic diseases is fragmented and predominantly focused on specific pathogens.
- Shared references between policies and literature were mostly modeling studies or reviews.

## Abstract

Zoonotic disease dynamics (ZDD), encompassing pathogen spillover, transmission pathways and host–pathogen interactions, are widely acknowledged as drivers of emerging infectious diseases. Yet, the extent to which recent pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (PPPR) policies – the integrated frameworks guiding international efforts to anticipate and manage infectious disease threats – are grounded in this expanding body of scientific research remains unclear. This study examines how research on ZDD is cited in six influential global policy reports published between 2021 and 2023. We employed citation network analysis and qualitative profiling to compare references cited in these reports with those cited by a systematically identified set of broad-scope scientific publications on ZDD. Of the 313 references across the six reports, only 59 (19%) pertained to ZDD, a relatively small proportion considering that zoonotic diseases are framed as primary drivers of pandemic risk in these same reports. The academic literature is highly diverse and predominantly focused on specific pathogens (66%), with few studies offering a broad-scope perspective (4%) that addresses the complexity of ZDD. The citation network of the selected broad-scope literature was fragmented revealing low convergence of the knowledge base. Shared references between reports and scientific literature (n = 31) were mostly modelling studies (45%) or reviews (35%). Secondary data predominated (45%), and only 6% relied primarily on original field or laboratory data. Foundational studies were often overrepresented. This narrow and selective evidence base risks obscuring key uncertainties and limiting the diversity of perspectives that inform global PPPR strategies. Our findings highlight the value of more systematic approaches to scientific evidence use in PPPR policy documents. Strengthening the science–policy interface in PPPR requires greater engagement with emerging research, epistemic diversity, and the acknowledgment of uncertainty – essential steps toward building more adaptive, equitable and resilient strategies.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-025-01434-5.