Authorship in paediatric research conducted in low- and middle-income countries: parity or parasitism?

A Comparative Analysis of Otolaryngology Journal Characteristics and Metrics Across World Bank Income Groups

Study Background and Aims

There are marked barriers to research and publishing for low- and middle- income country (LMIC) ENT researchers. This could be reflected in LMIC journal characteristics and research, which has never been investigated. We aim to characterize differences in the number, geographic distribution, publishing costs, reach, number of articles, citations, and impact factors of high-income country (HIC) journals compared to LMIC journals.

Methods

We included journals listed under the category "Otorhinolaryngology' in three major journal databases. From journal websites, we collected data related to financial model, waiver policy, access, and distribution. Additionally, from the Clarivate Journal Citation Reports 2022, we collected the following journal metrics: total articles, total citations, journal citation indicator, journal impact factor (JIF), 5-year JIF, and JIF without self cites.

Results

79.7% HIC journals offered English editing services, compared with 25.0% of LMIC journals. Additionally, 40.0% of HIC journals are solely open access compared with 92.0% in LMICs. Lower journal metrics were seen in LMIC journals, including 2022 mean total articles (107 HICs vs. 60 LMICs), total citations (4296 vs. 751), journal citation indicator (0.88 vs. 0.35), and journal impact factor (12.68 vs. 0.82).

Conclusion

We have identified substantial differences in the distribution, English editing services, and journal metrics of HIC journals compared to LMIC journals. These may point to potential barriers to publishing and research access for those in LMICs. To support LMIC research, future work should evaluate opportunities to increase the number of ENT journals in LMICs, expand open access publishing, improve access to language services, and increase LMIC research impact.

Geographic Representation of Authorship in Ophthalmic Research from Low- and Middle-Income Countries

PURPOSE

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are underrepresented in ophthalmic research, despite carrying the highest burden of visual impairment. To assess the representation of local authors in global ophthalmic research, this cross-sectional, bibliometric analysis measured the proportion of LMIC-affiliated authorship in LMIC-based ophthalmic research.

METHODS

We sampled original, primary research conducted in LMICs and published in 1 of 7 high-impact ophthalmic journals between 2017 and 2021. For each article, we extracted the number and name of country study site(s), country affiliation(s) of first and last author, proportion of LMIC-affiliated authors, funding sources, and study design.

RESULTS

Of the 1,333 studies exclusively conducted in LMICs, 89.4% of first authors and 80.6% of last authors were exclusively LMIC-affiliated. Representation of LMIC-affiliated first authors were lower in studies based in low-income countries (25.0%) or in sub-Saharan Africa (26.5%), published in journals with higher impact factors (68.0% in Ophthalmology), funded by high-income countries (HICs) (41.4%), or conducted in both LMICs and HICs (27.1%). The United States, United Kingdom, and Australia had the 3rd, 6th, and 8th largest shares of last authors. There were only 12 single-country studies conducted in low-income countries, namely Ethiopia, the Gambia, Guinea, Liberia, the Niger, and Sierra Leone. Of these countries, only three held first authorship and one held last authorship.

CONCLUSIONS

Although LMIC-based ophthalmic research has demonstrated higher local authorship representation compared to other fields, underrepresentation can be exacerbated by country income level, journal "prestige," and degree of HIC involvement. These discrepancies highlight the need for more equitable data ownership in global ophthalmic research.

Disparities in paediatric radiology research publications from low- and lower middle-income countries: a time for change

The positive impact of diversity on health research and outcomes is well-recognised and widely published. Despite this, published evidence shows that at every step of the research pathway, issues of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) arise. There is evidence of a lack of diversity within research teams, in the research questions asked/research participants recruited, on grant review/funding panels, amongst funded researchers and on the editorial boards and reviewer pools of the journals to which results are submitted for peer-reviewed publication. Considering the journal Pediatric Radiology, while its editorial board of 92 members has at least one member affiliated to a country in every region of the world, the majority are in North America (n=52, 57%) and Europe (n=30, 33%) and only two (2%) are affiliated to institutions in a lower middle-income country (LMIC) (India, Nigeria), with one (1%) affiliated to an institution in an upper middle-income country (UMIC) (Peru) and none in a low-income country (LIC). Pediatric Radiology is "…the official journal of the European Society of Paediatric Radiology, the Society for Pediatric Radiology, the Asian and Oceanic Society for Pediatric Radiology and the Latin American Society of Pediatric Radiology". However, of the total number of manuscripts submitted for potential publication in the four years 2019 through 2022, only 0.03% were from a LIC and only 7.9% were from a LMIC. Further, the frequency of acceptance of manuscripts from UMIC was seven times higher than that from LMIC (no manuscripts were published from LIC). Increased collaboration is required between researchers across the globe to better understand the barriers to equity in the funding, conduct and publication of research from LIC and LMIC and to identify ways in which we can overcome them together.

Authorship equity in global health research: who gets the credit at University of California, San Francisco?

Authorship inequity exists in global health research and can be representative of unequal partnerships. Previous studies showed that low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) authors are under-represented in publications from global collaborative research between LMIC and high-income countries (HIC). However, there are little data on trends for how specific HIC institutions are performing concerning equitable authorship. We used Web of Science to find published articles affiliated with the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), where an LMIC was referred to in the title, abstract or keywords from 2008 to 2021. The country affiliation of each author for all included articles was grouped based on World Bank data. A total of 5805 articles were included. On average, 53.6% (n=3109) of UCSF affiliated articles had at least one low-income country (LIC) or LMIC author; however, this number increased from 43.2% (n=63) in 2008 to 63.3% (n=421) in 2021. Overall, 16.3% (n=948) of UCSF affiliated articles had an LIC or LMIC researcher as the first author, 18.8% (n=1,059) had an LIC or LMIC researcher as second author, and 14.2% (n=820) had an LIC or LMIC researcher as last author. As long as manuscripts produced by UCSF have no LIC or LMIC authors included the university's commitment to authentic equity is undermined. Global health partnerships cannot be equitable without changing authorship trends between HIC and LMIC institutions.

The Changing Landscape of Global Child Health Education in the United States and the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Civil Unrest

The events of recent years have affected the landscape of global child health education (GCHE) in the United States. War, racism, forced displacement, and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had global repercussions that reached US GCHE. The aim of this article is to examine the effect of these events on the landscape of GCHE in the US. Key areas of GCHE have been reframed, reshaped, and accelerated by these events. Travel restrictions accelerated virtual learning opportunities. Core curriculum needed to be reconsidered to address antiracism, equity, and decolonization. Expansion of GCHE activities, including local-global electives, was needed to meet increased resident demand and help address local community needs. Inequities in international partnerships were further highlighted, requiring new approaches. Global research education and practices were also affected with a rapid expansion in virtual opportunities and further development of education in equitable research practices. [Pediatr Ann. 2023;52(9):e324-e329.].

Global Health Perspectives on Race in Research: Neocolonial Extraction and Local Marginalization

Best practices in global health training prioritize leadership and engagement from investigators from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), along with conscientious community consultation and research that benefits local participants and autochthonous communities. However, well into the 20th century, international research and clinical care remain rife with paternalism, extractive practices, and racist ideation, with race presumed to explain vulnerability or protection from various diseases, despite scientific evidence for far more precise mechanisms for infectious disease. We highlight experiences in global research on health and illness among indigenous populations in LMICs, seeking to clarify what is both scientifically essential and ethically desirable in research with human subjects; we apply a critical view towards race and racism as historically distorting elements that must be acknowledged and overcome.

Has Authorship in the Decolonizing Global Health Movement Been Colonized?

Background

Decolonization in global health is a recent movement aimed at relinquishing remnants of supremacist mindsets, inequitable structures, and power differentials in global health.

Objective

To determine the author demographics of publications on decolonizing global health and global health partnerships between low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs).

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of publications related to decolonizing global health and global health partnerships from the inception of the selected journal databases (i.e., Medline, CAB Global Health, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science) to November 14, 2022. Author country affiliations were assigned as listed in each publication. Author gender was assigned using author first name and the software genderize.io. Descriptive statistics were used for author country income bracket, gender, and distribution.

Findings

Among 197 publications on decolonizing global health and global health partnerships, there were 691 total authors (median 2 authors per publication, interquartile range 1, 4). Publications with author bylines comprised exclusively of authors affiliated with HICs were most common (70.0%, n = 138) followed by those with authors affiliated both with HICs and LMICs (22.3%, n = 44). Only 7.6% (n = 15) of publications had author bylines comprised exclusively of authors affiliated with LMICs. Over half (54.0%, n = 373) of the included authors had names that were female and female authors affiliated with HICs most commonly occupied first author positions (51.8%, n = 102).

Conclusions

Authors in publications on decolonizing global health and global health partnerships have largely been comprised of individuals affiliated with HICs. There was a marked paucity of publications with authors affiliated with LMICs, whose voices provide context and crucial insight into the needs of the decolonizing global health movement.

Bibliometric analysis of authorship patterns in publications from a research group at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 2016-2020

BACKGROUND

Authors from low and middle-income country (LMIC) institutions are under-represented in publications of research based in LMICs. This case study of publications from authors within the Medical Research Council International Statistics and Epidemiology Group (MRC-ISEG), a global health research group affiliated to the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in the UK, aims to describe patterns in authorship and factors associated with under-representation.

METHODS

Papers were included if they were published between January 2016 and December 2020 inclusive, included an author from the MRC-ISEG and described work conducted in a LMIC. Authors' affiliations were classified using World Bank country income classifications into LMIC affiliations only, high-income country (HIC) affiliations only and mixed LMIC/HIC affiliations. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to assess associations of author affiliation category with authorship position, and whether patterns varied by journal impact factor quartile and multiple versus single-country studies.

RESULTS

A total of 882 papers, including 10 570 authors describing research conducted in 61 LMICs, were included. Compared with authors of HIC-only affiliation, those with LMIC-only affiliation were less likely to be in first authorship position (relative risk ratio (RRR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.60) and mixed HIC/LMIC affiliation authors were more likely (RRR=2.80, 95% CI 2.35 to 3.34). Compared with authors of HIC-only affiliation, those with LMIC-only affiliation were less likely to be in last authorship position (RRR=0.20, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.24) and those with mixed HIC/LMIC affiliations were more likely (RRR=1.95, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.30). The proportion of senior authors with LMIC-only affiliation was lowest for the highest impact journals, and in multicountry versus single-country studies.

CONCLUSION

Alongside increasing research capacity within LMICs, HIC institutions should ensure that LMIC-affiliated researchers are properly represented in global research. Academics working in global health should be judged on their involvement in representative collaborative research rather than individual achievements in authorship position.

Global emergency medicine: A scoping review of the literature from 2021

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to identify the most important and impactful peer-reviewed global emergency medicine (GEM) articles published in 2021. The top articles are summarized in brief narratives and accompanied by a comprehensive list of all identified articles that address the topic during the year to serve as a reference for clinicians, researchers, and policy makers.

METHODS

A systematic PubMed search was carried out to identify all GEM articles published in 2021. Title and abstract screening was performed by trained reviewers and editors to identify articles in one of three categories based on predefined criteria: disaster and humanitarian response (DHR), emergency care in resource-limited settings (ECRLS), and emergency medicine development (EMD). Included articles were each scored by two reviewers using established rubrics for original (OR) and review (RE) articles. The top 5% of articles overall and the top 5% of articles from each category (DHR, ECRLS, EMD, OR, and RE) were included for narrative summary.

RESULTS

The 2021 search identified 44,839 articles, of which 444 articles screened in for scoring, 25% and 22% increases from 2020, respectively. After removal of duplicates, 23 articles were included for narrative summary. ECRLS constituted the largest category (n = 16, 70%), followed by EMD (n = 4, 17%) and DHR (n = 3, 13%). The majority of top articles were OR (n = 14, 61%) compared to RE (n = 9, 39%).

CONCLUSIONS

The GEM peer-reviewed literature continued to grow at a fast rate in 2021, reflecting the continued expansion and maturation of this subspecialty of emergency medicine. Few high-quality articles focused on DHR and EMD, suggesting a need for further efforts in those fields. Future efforts should focus on improving the diversity of GEM research and equitable representation.

Virtual global health in graduate medical education: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize recent virtual global health education activities for graduate medical trainees, document gaps in the literature, suggest future study, and inform best practice recommendations for global health educators.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed articles published on virtual global health education activities from 2012-2021 by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. We performed bibliography review and search of conference and organization websites. We included articles about primarily virtual activities targeting for health professional trainees. We collected and qualitatively analyzed descriptive data about activity type, evaluation, audience, and drivers or barriers. Heterogeneity of included articles did not lend to formal quality evaluation.

RESULTS

Forty articles describing 69 virtual activities met inclusion criteria. 55% of countries hosting activities were high-income countries. Most activities targeted students (57%), with the majority (53%) targeting trainees in both low- to middle- and high-income settings. Common activity drivers were course content, organization, peer interactions, and online flexibility. Common challenges included student engagement, technology, the internet, time zones, and scheduling. Articles reported unanticipated benefits of activities, including wide reach; real-world impact; improved partnerships; and identification of global health practice gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first review to synthesize virtual global health education activities for graduate medical trainees. Our review identified important drivers and challenges to these activities, the need for future study on activity preferences, and considerations for learners and educators in low- to middle-income countries. These findings may guide global health educators in their planning and implementation of virtual activities.

Academic Output in Global Surgery after the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery: A Scoping Review

Background

The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery (LCoGS) published its seminal report in 2015, carving a niche for global surgery academia. Six years after the LCoGS, a scoping review was conducted to see how the term 'global surgery' is characterized by the literature and how it relates to LCoGS and its domains.

Methods

PubMed was searched for publications between January 2015 and February 2021 that used the term ‘global surgery’ in the title, abstract, or key words or cited the LCoGS. Variables extracted included LCoGS domains, authorship metrics, geographic scope, and clinical specialty.

Results

The search captured 938 articles that qualified for data extraction. Nearly 80% of first and last authors had high-income country affiliations. Africa was the most frequently investigated region, though many countries within the region were under-represented. The World Journal of Surgery was the most frequent journal, publishing 13.9% of all articles. General surgery, pediatric surgery, and neurosurgery were the most represented specialties. Of the LCoGS domains, healthcare delivery and management were the most studied, while economics and financing were the least studied.

Conclusion

A lack of consensus on the definition of global surgery remains. Additional research is needed in economics and financing, while obstetrics and trauma are under-represented in literature using the term ‘global surgery’. Efforts in academic global surgery must give a voice to those carrying the global surgery agenda forward on the frontlines. Focusing on research capacity-building and encouraging contribution by local partners will lead to a stronger, more cohesive global surgery community.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00268-022-06640-8.

Authorship representation in global emergency medicine: a bibliometric analysis from 2016 to 2020

INTRODUCTION

High-income country (HIC) authors are disproportionately represented in authorship bylines compared with those affiliated with low and middle-income countries (LMICs) in global health research. An assessment of authorship representation in the global emergency medicine (GEM) literature is lacking but may inform equitable academic collaborations in this relatively new field.

METHODS

We conducted a bibliometric analysis of original research articles reporting studies conducted in LMICs from the annual GEM Literature Review from 2016 to 2020. Data extracted included study topic, journal, study country(s) and region, country income classification, author order, country(s) of authors' affiliations and funding sources. We compared the proportion of authors affiliated with each income bracket using Χ2 analysis. We conducted logistic regression to identify factors associated with first or last authorship affiliated with the study country.

RESULTS

There were 14 113 authors in 1751 articles. Nearly half (45.5%) of the articles reported work conducted in lower middle-income countries (MICs), 23.6% in upper MICs, 22.5% in low-income countries (LICs). Authors affiliated with HICs were most represented (40.7%); 26.4% were affiliated with lower MICs, 17.4% with upper MICs, 10.3% with LICs and 5.1% with mixed affiliations. Among single-country studies, those without any local authors (8.7%) were most common among those conducted in LICs (14.4%). Only 31.0% of first authors and 21.3% of last authors were affiliated with LIC study countries. Studies in upper MICs (adjusted OR (aOR) 3.6, 95% CI 2.46 to 5.26) and those funded by the study country (aOR 2.94, 95% CI 2.05 to 4.20) had greater odds of having a local first author.

CONCLUSIONS

There were significant disparities in authorship representation. Authors affiliated with HICs more commonly occupied the most prominent authorship positions. Recognising and addressing power imbalances in international, collaborative emergency medicine (EM) research is warranted. Innovative methods are needed to increase funding opportunities and other support for EM researchers in LMICs, particularly in LICs.

Consensus statement on measures to promote equitable authorship in the publication of research from international partnerships

Despite the acknowledged injustice and widespread existence of parachute research studies conducted in low- or middle-income countries by researchers from institutions in high-income countries, there is currently no pragmatic guidance for how academic journals should evaluate manuscript submissions and challenge this practice. We assembled a multidisciplinary group of editors and researchers with expertise in international health research to develop this consensus statement. We reviewed relevant existing literature and held three workshops to present research data and holistically discuss the concept of equitable authorship and the role of academic journals in the context of international health research partnerships. We subsequently developed statements to guide prospective authors and journal editors as to how they should address this issue. We recommend that for manuscripts that report research conducted in low- or middle-income countries by collaborations including partners from one or more high-income countries, authors should submit accompanying structured reflexivity statements. We provide specific questions that these statements should address and suggest that journals should transparently publish reflexivity statements with accepted manuscripts. We also provide guidance to journal editors about how they should assess the structured statements when making decisions on whether to accept or reject submitted manuscripts. We urge journals across disciplines to adopt these recommendations to accelerate the changes needed to halt the practice of parachute research.

Strengthening research capacity: a systematic review of manuscript writing and publishing interventions for researchers in low-income and middle-income countries

INTRODUCTION

Health researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are under-represented in the academic literature. Scientific writing and publishing interventions may help researchers publish their findings; however, we lack evidence about the prevalence and effectiveness of such interventions. This review describes interventions for researchers in LMICs aimed at strengthening capacity for writing and publishing academic journal articles.

METHODS

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to report literature searches in PubMed, Embase, Global Health, Scopus and ERIC. Our keywords included LMICs, low-income and middle-income countries, health research and writing/publication support interventions, with no restrictions on publication date. Our screening process consisted of title screening, abstract review and full-text review. We collected information about the content, implementation and evaluation of each intervention, if included.

RESULTS

We identified 20 interventions designed to strengthen capacity for scientific writing and publishing. We summarised information from the 14 interventions that reported submitted or published papers as outcomes separately, reasoning that because they provide quantifiable metrics of success, they may offer particular insights into intervention components leading to publication. The writing and publishing components in this 'Publications Reported' group were an average length of 5.4 days compared with 2.5 days in the other group we refer to as 'Other Interventions.' Whereas all 14 Publications Reported interventions incorporated mentors, only two of five in the Other Interventions group incorporated mentors. Across interventions, leaders expressed the importance of a high ratio of mentors to participants, the need to accommodate time demands of busy researchers, and the necessity of a budget for open access fees and high-quality internet connectivity.

CONCLUSION

Writing and publishing interventions in LMICs are an underutilised opportunity for capacity strengthening. To facilitate the implementation of high-quality interventions, future writing and publishing interventions should share their experiences by publishing detailed information about the approach and effectiveness of the interventions.

Review of authorship for COVID-19 research conducted during the 2020 first-wave epidemic in Africa reveals emergence of promising African biomedical research and persisting asymmetry of international collaborations

OBJECTIVES

The contribution of African authors to the biomedical literature is small. We evaluated the African and non-African scientific production published in the international literature on the COVID-19 in Africa during the first year of the epidemic (2020).

METHODS

Papers on COVID-19 in Africa were extracted from the Medline (PubMed) database for bibliometric analysis including the proportions of three leading and last authors by study type, study country, authors' and laboratories/institutions' countries of affiliation and journal ranking.

RESULTS

A total of 160 articles fulfilling the inclusion criteria were analysed. The majority (91.3%) was produced by half (53.7%) of African countries, with important regional disparities, and generally without sources of funding mentioned. The majority (>85.0) of authors in lead positions (first, second, third and last authors) were Africans. Only a small number (8.7%) of studies on COVID-19 in Africa were carried out by laboratories not on the African continent (mainly Europe, USA and China) and generally received funding. The last and first authors were more frequently of non-African origin in journals with an Impact Factor ranking ≥1, and more frequently of African origin in journals with a lower ranking (< 1). The first and last non-African authors tended to report their studies in high ranking ≥1 journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that the emergence of promising African research capable of publishing in indexed but low-impact factor medical journals and reveals the persistence of a North-South asymmetry in international cooperation in biomedical research with Africa.

Development of the Association of Pediatric Program Directors Global Educator Scholarship-Expanding Bidirectional Efforts in Global Health Education

BACKGROUND

The Board of the Association of Pediatric Program Directors (APPD) partnered with the APPD Global Health Learning Community (GHLC) to establish the APPD Global Pediatric Educator Scholarship. This award seeks to recognize pediatric educators who demonstrate leadership in improving pediatric education in low- and middle-income countries, and provide them with career development opportunities by attending the APPD Spring meeting. Two educators per year have been awarded the scholarship since 2017.

AWARD EVALUATION

The authors sent survey questions via email and obtained responses from 6 (100%) of the scholarship awardees, 8 (75%) APPD GHLC leadership individuals, and 4 (67%) APPD Board members. Three authors analyzed the responses with consensus achieved on themes.

RESULTS

Awardees noted learning about educational strategies, academic opportunities through networking, and context for stronger bilateral exchange with partners. APPD leaders noted an expansion of the organization's mission to include global presence. Challenges included program visibility, sustainable funding, and logistics. Suggestions included better incorporation of awardees into APPD membership, longitudinal mentorship, targeted conference navigation, and visits to local academic institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

The APPD Global Educator Scholarship is a replicable model of organizational global outreach that expands the concept of bidirectional exchange to include career sponsorship for global partners.

Systematic analysis of authorship demographics in global surgery

Background

Global surgery has recently gained prominence as an academic discipline within global health. Authorship inequity has been a consistent feature of global health publications, with over-representation of authors from high-income countries (HICs), and disenfranchisement of researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, we investigated authorship demographics within recently published global surgery literature.

Methods

We performed a systematic analysis of author characteristics, including gender, seniority and institutional affiliation, for global surgery studies published between 2016 and 2020 and indexed in the PubMed database. We compared the distribution of author gender and seniority across studies related to different topics; between authors affiliated with HICs and LMICs; and across studies with different authorship networks.

Results

1240 articles were included for analysis. Most authors were male (60%), affiliated only with HICs (51%) and of high seniority (55% were fully qualified specialist or generalist clinicians, Principal Investigators, or in senior leadership or management roles). The proportion of male authors increased with increasing seniority for last and middle authors. Studies related to Obstetrics and Gynaecology had similar numbers of male and female authors, whereas there were more male authors in studies related to surgery (69% male) and Anaesthesia and Critical care (65% male). Compared with HIC authors, LMIC authors had a lower proportion of female authors at every seniority grade. This gender gap among LMIC middle authors was reduced in studies where all authors were affiliated only with LMICs.

Conclusion

Authorship disparities are evident within global surgery academia. Remedial actions to address the lack of authorship opportunities for LMIC authors and female authors are required.

Considering equity in global health collaborations: A qualitative study on experiences of equity

International collaborations have become the standard model for global health research and often include researchers and institutions from high income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While such collaborations are important for generating new knowledge that will help address global health inequities, there is evidence to suggest that current forms of collaboration may reproduce unequal power relations. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study with scientists, researchers and those involved in research management, working in international health collaborations. Interviews were conducted between October 2019 and March 2020. We conducted 13 interviews with 15 participants. From our findings, we derive three major themes. First, our results reflect characteristics of equitable, collaborative research relationships. Here we find both relational features, specifically trust and belonging, and structural features, including clear contractual agreements, capacity building, inclusive divisions of labour, and the involvement of local communities. Second, we discuss obstacles to develop equitable collaborations. These include exclusionary labour practices, donor-driven research agendas, overall research culture, lack of accountability and finally, the inadequate financing of indirect costs for LMIC institutions. Third, we discuss the responsibilities for promoting science equity of funders, LMIC researchers, LMIC institutions, and LMIC governments. While other empirical studies have suggested similar features of equity, our findings extend these features to include local communities as collaborators in research projects and not only as beneficiaries. We also suggest the importance of funders paying for indirect costs, without which the capacity of LMIC institutions will continually erode. And finally, our study shows the responsibilities of LMIC actors in developing equitable collaborations, which have largely been absent from the literature.

COVID-19 information dissemination in Uganda: Perspectives from sub-national health workers

BACKGROUND

In many places, health workers at the sub-national level are on the frontlines of disseminating information about coronavirus (COVID-19) to communities. To ensure communities are receiving timely and accurate information, it is vital health workers are kept abreast of the most recent recommendations, and guidance.

METHODS

An electronic survey was implemented to provide insights about the dissemination and utilisation of information and evidence related to the COVID-19 pandemic by health workers engaged at sub-national levels of the Ugandan health system. The aim of this survey was to provide insights about the dissemination and utilisation of information and evidence related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic by individuals engaged at sub-national levels of the health system.

RESULTS

Mass media and public health campaigns and outreach activities were deemed the most suitable means to reach communities with COVID-19 information. Given the reported disruption to public outreach campaigns, this is a particularly important consideration for the provision of information to communities. All materials should be adapted to the local context. The need for information on homecare of COVID-19 patients was highlighted, along with the need for updated local statistics as to COVID-19 cases to be relayed for health workers at sub-national levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the sources of information used by health workers can facilitate the transfer of relevant and timely information, which in turn increases the use of such information by the Ugandan population. It is vital that these issues are continued to be monitored, and communication modes and content are actively responsive to the time- and place-specific needs of health workers and community members.

Where there is no local author: a network bibliometric analysis of authorship parasitism among research conducted in sub-Saharan Africa

INTRODUCTION

Authorship parasitism (ie, no authors affiliated with the country in which the study took place) occurs frequently in research conducted in low-income and middle-income countries, despite published recommendations defining authorship criteria. The objective was to compare characteristics of articles exhibiting authorship parasitism in sub-Saharan Africa to articles with author representation from sub-Saharan African countries.

METHODS

A bibliometric review of articles indexed in PubMed published from January 2014 through December 2018 reporting research conducted in sub-Saharan Africa was performed. Author affiliations were assigned to countries based on regular expression algorithms. Choropleth maps and network diagrams were created to determine where authorship parasitism occurred, and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine associated factors.

RESULTS

Of 32 061 articles, 14.8% (n=4754) demonstrated authorship parasitism, which was most common among studies from Somalia (n=175/233, 75.1%) and Sao Tome and Principe (n=20/28, 71.4%). Authors affiliated with USA and UK institutions were most commonly involved in articles exhibiting authorship parasitism. Authorship parasitism was more common in articles: published in North American journals (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.26, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.50) than in sub-Saharan African journals, reporting work from multiple sub-Saharan African countries (aOR 8.41, 95% CI 7.30 to 9.68) compared with work from upper-middle income sub-Saharan African countries, with <5 authors (aOR 14.46, 95% CI 12.81 to 16.35) than >10 authors, and was less common in articles published in French (aOR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.85) than English.

CONCLUSIONS

Authorship parasitism was common in articles reporting research conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. There were reliable predictors of authorship parasitism. Investigators and institutions in high-income countries, as well as funding agencies and journals should promote research from sub-Saharan Africa, including its publication, in a collaborative and equitable manner.

African Global Representation in Biomedical Sciences

African populations are diverse in their ethnicity, language, culture, and genetics. Although plagued by high disease burdens, until recently the continent has largely been excluded from biomedical studies. Along with limitations in research and clinical infrastructure, human capacity, and funding, this omission has resulted in an underrepresentation of African data and disadvantaged African scientists. This review interrogates the relative abundance of biomedical data from Africa, primarily in genomics and other omics. The visibility of African science through publications is also discussed. A challenge encountered in this review is the relative lack of annotation of data on their geographical or population origin, with African countries represented as a single group. In addition to the abovementioned limitations,the global representation of African data may also be attributed to the hesitation to deposit data in public repositories. Whatever the reason, the disparity should be addressed, as African data have enormous value for scientists in Africa and globally.

Opportunities and disconnects in the use of primary research on schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminths for policy and practice: results from a survey of researchers

Even with efforts to facilitate use of evidence in health policy and practice, limited attention has been paid to researchers' perspectives on use of their research in informing public health policy and practice at local, national, and global levels. We conducted a systematic literature search to identify published primary research related to schistosomiasis or soil-transmitted helminths, or both. We then surveyed corresponding authors. Results indicate differences by locations of authors and in conduct of research, especially for research conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Our findings exemplify disparities in research leadership discussed elsewhere. Researchers' perspectives on the use of their work suggest limited opportunities and 'disconnects' that hinder their engagement with policy and other decision-making processes. These findings highlight a need for additional efforts to address structural barriers and enable engagement between researchers and decision-makers.

How global is global health research? A large-scale analysis of trends in authorship

Many have called for greater inclusion of researchers from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the conduct of global health research, yet the extent to which this occurs is unclear. Prior studies are journal-, subject-, or region-specific, largely rely on manual review, and yield varying estimates not amenable to broad evaluation of the literature. We conducted a large-scale investigation of the contribution of LMIC-affiliated researchers to published global health research and examined whether this contribution differed over time. We searched titles, abstracts, and keywords for the names of countries ever classified as low-, lower middle-, or upper middle-income by the World Bank, and limited our search to items published from 2000 to 2017 in health science-related journals. Publication metadata were obtained from Elsevier/Scopus and analysed in statistical software. We calculated proportions of publications with any, first, and last authors affiliated with any LMIC as well as the same LMIC(s) identified in the title/abstract/keywords, and stratified analyses by year, country, and countries’ most common income status. We analysed 786 779 publications and found that 86.0% included at least one LMIC-affiliated author, while 77.2% and 71.2% had an LMIC-affiliated first or last author, respectively; however, analagous proportions were only 58.7%, 36.8%, and 29.1% among 100 687 publications about low-income countries. Proportions of publications with LMIC-affiliated authors increased over time, yet this observation was driven by high research activity and representation among upper middle-income countries. Between-country variation in representation was observed, even within income status categories. We invite comment regarding these findings, particularly from voices underrepresented in this field.

Authorship Patterns in Cancer Genomics Publications Across Africa

PURPOSE

Authorship is a proxy indicator of research capacity. Understanding the research capacity is imperative for developing population-specific cancer control strategies. This is particularly apropos for African nations, where mortality from cancer is projected to surpass that from infectious disease and the populations are critically under-represented in cancer and genomics studies. Here, we present an analysis and discussion of the patterns of authorship in Africa as they pertain to cancer genomics research across African countries.

METHODS

PubMed metadata of relevant cancer genomics peer-reviewed publications on African populations, published between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2019, were retrieved and analyzed for patterns of authorship affiliation using R packages, RISmed, and Pubmed.mineR.

RESULTS

The data showed that only 0.016% (n = 375) of cancer publications globally were on cancer genomics of African people. More than 50% of the first and last authors of these publications originated from the North African countries of Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, and Algeria. South Africa (13.6% and 12.7%) and Nigeria (2.2% and 1.9%) were the Sub-Saharan African countries most represented by first and last authorship positions, respectively. The United States contributed 12.6% of first and last authored papers, and nearly 50% of all African countries had no contributing author for the publications we reviewed.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights and brings awareness to the paucity of cancer genomics research on African populations and by African authors and identifies a need for concerted efforts to encourage and enable more research in Africa, needed for achieving global equity in cancer outcomes.

Mapping experiences and perspectives of equity in international health collaborations: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Whilst global health research often involves international collaborations, achieving or promoting equity within collaborations remains a key challenge, despite established conceptual approaches and the development of frameworks and guidelines to promote equity. There have also been several empirical studies documenting researchers' experiences of inequity and views on what is required to advance equity in global health collaborations. While these empirical studies provide critical insights, there has been no attempt to systematically synthetize what constitutes equity and how it can be achieved. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies, opinion and editorial pieces about what equity is and how it can be promoted in international collaborations.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to explore domains of equity in international health collaborations. This review included qualitative studies and opinion pieces or editorial pieces on equity in international health collaborations. We mapped the data and identified common themes using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

This initial search retrieved a total of 7611 papers after removing duplicates. A total of 11 papers were included in this review, 10 empirical studies and 1 editorial piece. We conducted our search between October - November 2019. We identified 10 key domains which are important for promoting equity in international collaborations: funding; capacity building; authorship; sample ownership and export; trust; research agreement; acknowledging inequality; recognition and communication.

DISCUSSION

Our findings suggest that for international collaborations to be considered more equitable, it must at least consider the 10 domains we highlighted. The 10 domains map onto five key aspects of social justice theory, namely avoiding unequal power relations like subordination, group recognition and affirmation, promoting the well-being of all, inclusion in decision-making and ensuring self-development.

Health research capacity in Nepal: Analysis of the trend and the role of local researchers

Evidence-based decision-making is less common in low- and middle-income countries where the research capacity remains low. Nepal, a lower-middle-income country in Asia, is not an exception. We conducted a rapid review to identify the trend of health research in Nepal and found more than seven-fold increase in the number of published health-related articles between 2000 and 2018. The proportion of articles with Nepalese researchers as the first authors has also risen over the years, though they are still only in two-thirds of the articles in 2018.

AUTHORSHIP MALPRACTICES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Although the variety of research malpractices in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is similar to those documented in developed nations, authorship misuse and related issues appear to be more prevalent in the former. This article focuses on some authorship-related topics in LMIC, namely authorship disputes, excessive co-authorship and monetary incentives, authorship issues in student-mentor relationships, and authorship patterns in North-South collaborations. Universities and official bodies in LMIC must supervise the integrity of the whole research process, provide instructions on responsible research and authorship, set up the required postgraduate training programs, foster good role models in authorship, and designate an ombudsperson to advice and respond to complaints of researchers, especially students and junior faculty. Lastly, a recent framework that combines descriptive and normative elements and then uses proper metaphors to achieve an ethical definition of authorship useful in international settings is highlighted.

Improving Pediatric Academic Global Health Collaborative Research and Agenda Setting: A Mixed-Methods Study

Academic global health collaborations have the potential to improve joint understanding of health issues in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Our objective was to elucidate perceptions of benefits and challenges of academic global health collaborations as well as areas for improving collaborative research conducted in LMICs. This cross-sectional, mixed-methods study surveyed investigators' perceptions of benefits and challenges of pediatric academic global health collaborations. Authors of articles from four pediatric journals reporting pediatric research conducted in LMICs published between 2006 and 2015 were surveyed. Responses of LMIC investigators were compared with those of investigators in high-income countries (HICs). Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using a combined thematic and content analysis approach. Of 1,420 potential respondents, 252 (17.7%) responded to the survey. Collaborative research with investigators from other countries was perceived as beneficial by 88.5% of respondents (n = 223), although this perception was more common among HIC respondents (n = 110, 94.0%) than LMIC respondents (n = 113, 83.7%) (p = 0.014). Sixty-seven percent (n = 170) of respondents perceived that HIC investigators had set the research agenda in work conducted in a LMIC. Respondents identified several critical factors to improve academic global health collaborations, including research capacity building, communication, and early involvement of LMIC investigators with shared decision-making during study conception and grant writing. Pediatric academic global health collaboration was widely perceived as positive. However, despite calls for capacity building and locally generated research ideas, many respondents felt that HIC investigators set the research agenda for work conducted in LMICs. This study provides suggestions for improving collaboration among pediatric academicians globally.

Creating a collaborative peer writing group during residency

Residency training principally aims to educate trainees on the clinical care of patients. This arduous period of training also offers access to mentorship and institutional resources for research; however, the demands of rigorous clinical training present barriers to conducting meaningful research during this time. Peer writing groups have been shown to be effective means to increase scholarly output among faculty but have not been well described as models to increase scholarly output among residents. The authors established a collaborative peer writing group during residency that resulted in several peer-reviewed publications along with national and international conference presentations. Based on their experience and a review of the literature, the authors present practical tips on establishing and implementing a resident peer writing group.

Stuck in the middle: a systematic review of authorship in collaborative health research in Africa, 2014-2016

Background

Collaborations are often a cornerstone of global health research. Power dynamics can shape if and how local researchers are included in manuscripts. This article investigates how international collaborations affect the representation of local authors, overall and in first and last author positions, in African health research.

Methods

We extracted papers on 'health' in sub-Saharan Africa indexed in PubMed and published between 2014 and 2016. The author's affiliation was used to classify the individual as from the country of the paper's focus, from another African country, from Europe, from the USA/Canada or from another locale. Authors classified as from the USA/Canada were further subclassified if the author was from a top US university. In primary analyses, individuals with multiple affiliations were presumed to be from a high-income country if they contained any affiliation from a high-income country. In sensitivity analyses, these individuals were presumed to be from an African country if they contained any affiliation an African country. Differences in paper characteristics and representation of local coauthors are compared by collaborative type using χ² tests.

Results

Of the 7100 articles identified, 68.3% included collaborators from the USA, Canada, Europe and/or another African country. 54.0% of all 43 429 authors and 52.9% of 7100 first authors were from the country of the paper's focus. Representation dropped if any collaborators were from USA, Canada or Europe with the lowest representation for collaborators from top US universities-for these papers, 41.3% of all authors and 23.0% of first authors were from country of paper's focus. Local representation was highest with collaborators from another African country. 13.5% of all papers had no local coauthors.

Discussion

Individuals, institutions and funders from high-income countries should challenge persistent power differentials in global health research. South-South collaborations can help African researchers expand technical expertise while maintaining presence on the resulting research.

Who is telling the story? A systematic review of authorship for infectious disease research conducted in Africa, 1980-2016

Introduction

Africa contributes little to the biomedical literature despite its high burden of infectious diseases. Global health research partnerships aimed at addressing Africa-endemic disease may be polarised. Therefore, we assessed the contribution of researchers in Africa to research on six infectious diseases.

Methods

We reviewed publications on HIV and malaria (2013–2016), tuberculosis (2014–2016), salmonellosis, Ebola haemorrhagic fever and Buruli ulcer disease (1980–2016) conducted in Africa and indexed in the PubMed database using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol. Papers reporting original research done in Africa with at least one laboratory test performed on biological samples were included. We studied African author proportion and placement per study type, disease, funding, study country and lingua franca.

Results

We included 1182 of 2871 retrieved articles that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 1109 (93.2%) had at least one Africa-based author, 552 (49.8%) had an African first author and 41.3% (n=458) an African last author. Papers on salmonellosis and tuberculosis had a higher proportion of African last authors (p<0.001) compared with the other diseases. Most of African first and last authors had an affiliation from an Anglophone country. HIV, malaria, tuberculosis and Ebola had the most extramurally funded studies (≥70%), but less than 10% of the acknowledged funding was from an African funder.

Conclusion

African researchers are under-represented in first and last authorship positions in papers published from research done in Africa. This calls for greater investment in capacity building and equitable research partnerships at every level of the global health community.

The contribution of Dutch doctors in Global Health and Tropical Medicine to research in global health in low- and middle-income countries: an exploration of the evidence

Results from medical research from high-income countries may not apply to low- and middle-income countries. Some expatriate physicians combine clinical duties with research. We present global health research conducted by Dutch medical doctors in Global Health and Tropical Medicine in low- and middle-income countries and explore the value of their research.

We included all research conducted in the last 30 years by medical doctors in Global Health and Tropical Medicine in a low- and middle-income country, resulting in a PhD thesis. Articles and co-authors were found through Medline. More than half of the 18 identified PhD theses concerned maternal health and obstetrics, and the majority of the research was conducted in low-income countries, mostly in rural hospitals. Over 70 local co-authors were involved. Different aspects of these studies are discussed.

Updated Editorial Guidance for Quality and Reliability of Research Output

Over the past few years, updated editorial policy statements of several associations have provided a platform for improving the quality of scientific research and publishing. The updates have particularly pointed to the need for following research reporting standards, authorship and contributorship regulations, implementing digital tools for the identification and crediting academic contributors, and moving towards optimal ethical open-access models. This article overviews some of the recent editorial policy statements of global editorial associations and reflects on the role of the regional counterparts in advancing scholarly publishing. One of the globally promoted documents is the Recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Its latest versions contain statements on proper research reporting, reviewing, editing, and publishing. Points on ethical target journals and 'predatory' sources are also available. This year, in a move to update its editorial policy, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) released the Core Practices, comprehensively reflecting on the major issues in publication ethics. Updated joint statements of medical writers associations are also available to implement transparent policy on contributorship in sponsor-supported research projects and related reports. Several suggestions are put forward to improve global editorial statements on online profiling, crediting, and referencing. It is also highlighted that knowledge and implementation of updated editorial guidance is essential for editors' good standing.

Patterns of authorship on community health workers in low-and-middle-income countries: an analysis of publications (2012-2016)

Introduction

Studies of authorship provide a barometer of local research capacity and ownership of research, considered key to defining appropriate research priorities, developing contextualised responses to health problems and ensuring that research informs policy and practice. This paper reports on an analysis of patterns of research authorship of the now substantial literature on community health workers (CHWs) in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) for the 5-year period: 2012–2016.

Methods

A search of five databases identified a total of 649 indexed publications reporting on CHWs in LMICs and meeting the inclusion criteria. The country, region and income classification of studies, affiliations (country, organisation) of lead (first) and last authors, proportions of all authors locally affiliated, programme area (eg, maternal child health) and funding source were extracted.

Results

The 649 papers reported experiences from 51 countries, 55% from middle-income countries (MICs) and 32% from low-income countries (LICs), with the remaining 13% multicountry studies. Overall, 47% and 54% of all the papers had a high-income country (HIC) lead and last author, respectively. Authorship followed three patterns: (1) a concentrated HIC pattern, with US-based authors numerically dominating LIC-based and multicountry studies; (2) an MIC pattern of autonomy, with a handful of countries—India, South Africa and Brazil, in particular—leading >70% of their CHW publications and (3) a pattern of unevenness among LICs in their lead authorship of publications varying from 14% (Malawi) to 54% (Uganda). Region, programme area and funding source were all associated with the distribution of authorship across country income categories.

Conclusion

The findings in this analysis mirror closely that of other authorship studies in global health. Collectively these provide a common message—that investments in global health programmes in the Millennium Development Goal era may have benefited health but not necessarily capacity for knowledge generation in LMICs.

Sickle cell disease: Translating clinical care to low-resource countries through international research collaborations

The vast majority of the world's population of children and adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) are born in low-resource settings, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East, and India. As a result numerous well-established, cost-effective, and evidence-based strategies for managing SCD such as newborn screening, early education, vaccinations, screening for stroke prevention, and treatments with safe transfusions and hydroxyurea are often unavailable, leading to substantial morbidity and increased mortality. Collaborations between high-income countries and these low-resource settings (North-South partnerships) have been advocated, with the goal of improving clinical care. Based on directives promulgated by the World Health Organization, we have developed a strategy of developing prospective research programs that focus on training, capacity building, and local data collection. This strategy involves consideration of important guiding principles, full partnerships, proper planning, and financial issues before program launch, after which rigorous program management is required for full effect and long-term sustainability. Ultimately these collaborative research programs should help create national guidelines and lead to improved clinical care for all children and adults with SCD.