The Cape Town Statement on fairness, equity and diversity in research

A model of the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to explore the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity with a focus on the primary forms of research misconduct, including plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. It also details the main factors for their occurrence, and the possible ways for mitigating their use among scholars.Methods: The method employed a detailed examination of the main ethical dilemmas, as delineated in literature, as well as the factors leading to these ethical breaches and the strategies to mitigate them. Further, the teaching experiences of the primary author are reflected in the development of the model.Results: The results of this article are represented in a model illustrating the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity. Further, a significant aspect of our article is the identification of novel forms of research misconduct concerning the use of irrelevant or forced citations or references.Conclusion: In conclusion, the article highlights the substantial positive effects that adherence to research ethics and integrity have on the academic well-being of scholars.

Global health reciprocal innovation: ethical, legal and regulatory considerations

Global health reciprocal innovation (GHRI) is a recent and more formalised approach to conducting research that recognises and develops innovations (eg, medicines, devices, methodologies) from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). At present, studies using GHRI most commonly adapt innovations from LMICs for use in high-income countries (HICs), although some develop innovations in LMICs and HICs. In this paper, we propose that GHRI implicitly makes two ethical commitments: (1) to promote health innovations from LMICs, especially in HICs, and (2) to conduct studies on health innovations from LMICs in equitable partnerships between investigators in LMICs and HICs. We argue that these commitments take a significant step towards a more equal global health research enterprise while helping to ensure that populations and investigators in LMICs receive equitable benefits from studies using GHRI. However, studies using GHRI can raise potential ethical concerns and face legal and regulatory barriers. We propose ethical, legal and regulatory considerations to help address these concerns and barriers. We hope our recommendations will allow GHRI to move the global health research enterprise forward into an era where all people are treated equally as knowers and learners, while populations in both LMICs and HICs benefit equitably from studies using GHRI.

Aligning the principles and practice of research integrity and research fairness in global health: a mixed-methods study

INTRODUCTION

In the past decade, global health research has seen a growing emphasis on research integrity and fairness. The concept of research integrity emerged in response to the reproducibility crisis in science during the late 2000s. Research fairness initiatives aim to enhance ownership and inclusivity in research involving partners with varying powers, decision-making roles and resource capacities, ultimately prioritising local health research needs. Despite extensive academic discussions, empirical data on these aspects, especially in the context of global health, remain limited.

METHODS

To address this gap, we conducted a mixed-methods study focusing on research integrity and fairness. The study included an online frequency survey and in-depth key informant interviews with researchers from international research networks. The dual objectives were to quantify the frequency of practices related to research integrity and fairness and explore the determinants influencing these practices in global health.

RESULTS

Out of 145 participants in the quantitative survey (8.4% response rate), findings indicate that global health researchers generally adhere to principles of research integrity and fairness, with variations in reported behaviours. The study identified structural, institutional and individual factors influencing these patterns, including donor landscape rigidity, institutional investments in relationship building, guidelines, mentoring and power differentials among researchers.

CONCLUSION

This research highlights that, despite some variations, there is a substantial alignment between research integrity and fairness, with both sharing similar determinants and the overarching goal of enhancing research quality and societal benefits. The study emphasises the potential to explicitly recognise and leverage these synergies, aligning both agendas to further advance global health research.

Charting a Course: Navigating Rigor and Meaning in Global Health Research

In the rapidly evolving landscape of global health research, the tension between scientific rigor and contextual meaning presents a critical challenge. Drawing on our work with the Global Diet and Physical Activity Network, this commentary explores the complexities of conducting environmental audits for physical activity and diet in 4 rapidly urbanizing African cities: Yaoundé, Lagos, Cape Town, and Soweto. We illustrate the competing demands and tensions that researchers face in balancing rigor and meaning. We discuss the adaptation of internationally validated audit tools to local contexts and the importance of area-level deprivation in interpreting data. We also examine the feasibility of virtual assessment tools, emphasizing the value of local expertise. We argue for a balanced approach that marries research rigor with contextual meaning, advocating for transparency, humility, and meaningful community engagement.

Academic anaesthesiology: a global perspective on training, support, and future development of early career researchers

As anaesthesiologists face increasing clinical demands and a limited and competitive funding environment for academic work, the sustainability of academic anaesthesiologists has never been more tenuous. Yet, the speciality needs academic anaesthesiologists in many roles, extending beyond routine clinical duties. Anaesthesiologist educators, researchers, and administrators are required not only to train future generations but also to lead innovation and expansion of anaesthesiology and related specialities, all to improve patient care. This group of early career researchers with geographically distinct training and practice backgrounds aim to highlight the diversity in clinical and academic training and career development pathways for anaesthesiologists globally. Although multiple routes to success exist, one common thread is the need for consistent support of strong mentors and sponsors. Moreover, to address inequitable opportunities, we emphasise the need for diversity and inclusivity through global collaboration and exchange that aims to improve access to research training and participation. We are optimistic that by focusing on these fundamental principles, we can help build a more resilient and sustainable future for academic anaesthesiologists around the world.

Tackling the lack of diversity in cancer research

Despite the clear benefit of studying biological samples from diverse genetic backgrounds and geographical locations, our current knowledge of disease is mostly derived from the study of European-descent individuals. In the cancer field, this is reflected in the poor representation of African and Amerindian/Latino samples in most large public data repositories. This lack of diversity is due to several reasons, but here we focus on (1) the lack of support for studies on non-European populations that are performed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and (2) unequal partnerships between scientists in LMICs and those in high-income countries. We argue that expanding access to research funding, increasing the participation of underrepresented scientists in editorial boards and international conferences, facilitating the publication of studies conducted in these countries, and properly acknowledging LMIC researchers' contributions in publications and grant applications will promote equity for scientists working in LMICs. We envisage that this will translate to more impactful research in these countries, which will include more samples from diverse populations. For the cancer field, this will broaden our understanding of pathomechanisms and may help to improve the treatment of patients from all backgrounds.