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

Lupus and other autoimmune diseases: Epidemiology in the population of African ancestry and diagnostic and management challenges in Africa

Autoimmune diseases are prevalent among people of African ancestry living outside Africa. However, the burden of autoimmune diseases in Africa is not well understood. This article provides a global overview of the current burden of autoimmune diseases in individuals of African descent. It also discusses the major factors contributing to autoimmune diseases in this population group, as well as the challenges involved in diagnosing and managing autoimmune diseases in Africa.

Tobacco control research on the African continent: a 22-year literature review and network analysis

OBJECTIVE

Describe the landscape of tobacco-related topics, funders and institutional networks in Africa.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, Embase and African Index Medicus for published articles from January 1996 to August 2018 in any language.

STUDY SELECTION

Two researchers independently reviewed titles and abstracts for a focus on nicotine or tobacco product(s) and describe data or recommendations specific to Africa. Ultimately, 818 articles were identified.

DATA EXTRACTION

Three independent coders conducted qualitative analyses of articles and extracted funders, study populations, countries of research focus, research topics, tobacco products, study design and data source. A bibliometric analysis estimated coauthorship networks between the countries of authors' primary institutional affiliation.

DATA SYNTHESIS

All 54 African countries were represented in two or more articles. The coauthorship network included 2714 unique authors representing 90 countries. Most articles employed a cross-sectional study design with primary data collection, focused on cigarettes and studied use behaviour. Few articles examined tobacco farming or interventions for cessation or prevention. The most frequently cited funder was the US National Institutes of Health (27.2%). A range of coauthorship patterns existed between African institutions with some coauthoring with one institution while others coauthored with 761 institutions in other African countries.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature review identified the need for implementation research for tobacco control interventions and policies, economic and development impacts of tobacco use research, and tobacco industry and tobacco production and farming research. Numbers of research collaborations between institutions in Africa vary, suggesting the need for regional institutional capacity building.

A review of authorship in herpes simplex virus type-2 (HSV-2) research conducted in low-income and middle-income countries between 2000 and 2020

INTRODUCTION

Equitable inclusion of low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) researchers and women in research authorship is a priority. A review of progress in addressing WHO-identified priorities provided an opportunity to examine the geographical and gender distribution of authorship in herpes simplex virus type-2 (HSV-2) research.

METHODS

Publications addressing five areas prioritised in a WHO workshop and published between 2000 and 2020 were identified. Data on author country, gender, authorship position and research funding source were collected by manuscript review and internet searches and analysed using IBM SPSS V.26.

RESULTS

Of, 297 eligible papers identified, (n=294) had multiple authors. Of these, 241 (82%) included at least one LMIC author and 143 (49%) and 122 (41%) had LMIC first and last authors, respectively. LMICs funded studies were more than twice as likely to include an LMIC first or last author as high-income country-funded studies (relative risk 2.36, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.89). Respectively, 129 (46%) and 106 (36%) studies had female first and last authors. LMIC first and last authorship varied widely by HSV-2 research area and increased over time to 65% and 59% by 2015-2020.

CONCLUSION

Despite location of the research itself in LMIC settings, over the 20-year period, LMIC researchers held only a minority of first and last authorship positions. While LMIC representation in these positions improved over time, important inequities remain in key research areas and for women. Addressing current and historical power disparities in global health research, research infrastructure and how it is funded may be key addressing to addressing these issues.

Scientific production in sexual and reproductive health and rights research according to gender and affiliation: An analysis of publications from 1972 to 2021

INTRODUCTION

Peer-reviewed literature is commonly used to assess academic progress and research excellency. However, representation in authorship of global health publications is biased and unfair. In order to shed light on current gaps towards attaining gender equality in scientific production and shift power asymmetries in global health research, we conducted an assessment of authorship trends from 1972 to 2021 with a focus on gender and geographic representation in scientific articles authored or co-authored by researchers affiliated with UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and HRP public reports for publications where at least one author was affiliated with HRP. Our main outcome measures were author gender and location of author affiliation, classified by region and country income group. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the publications under analysis as well as the total number of authors from the included papers. We applied a logistic regression model to explore associations between author gender and other characteristics of published articles and a time series analysis to assess how time can influence the inclusion of women as authors in a publication. Python and R were used for all analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 1,484 publications with 14,424 listed authors representing 5,950 unique authors were included in our analysis: 42.5% were female, 35.1% male, and 22.4% unknown (p<0.0001). First authorship was more likely female (56.9%) and from a high-income country (74.6%, p<0.0001) while last authorship was mostly male (53.7%) also from a high-income country (82.5%, p<0.0001). Females more frequently published papers using qualitative data (61.4%) and reviews/estimates (59.4%) while men published more case control (70.7%) and randomised controlled studies (53.0%), p<0.0001. The adjusted odds of there being a female author increased 4% for every additional year that passed.

CONCLUSION

While there are more females authoring articles as compared to the past, they are still lagging behind with regards to seniority and prestige. Likewise, female representation is closely tied to what institution they are affiliated with and where that institution is located. Global health research institutions need to actively promote change by ensuring women are included in research and research outputs, giving them opportunities to lead.

Unfair knowledge practices in global health: a realist synthesis

Unfair knowledge practices easily beset our efforts to achieve health equity within and between countries. Enacted by people from a distance and from a position of power ('the centre') on behalf of and alongside people with less power ('the periphery'), these unfair practices have generated a complex literature of complaints across various axes of inequity. We identified a sample of this literature from 12 journals and systematized it using the realist approach to explanation. We framed the outcome to be explained as 'manifestations of unfair knowledge practices'; their generative mechanisms as 'the reasoning of individuals or rationale of institutions'; and context that enable them as 'conditions that give knowledge practices their structure'. We identified four categories of unfair knowledge practices, each triggered by three mechanisms: (1) credibility deficit related to pose (mechanisms: 'the periphery's cultural knowledge, technical knowledge and "articulation" of knowledge do not matter'), (2) credibility deficit related to gaze (mechanisms: 'the centre's learning needs, knowledge platforms and scholarly standards must drive collective knowledge-making'), (3) interpretive marginalization related to pose (mechanisms: 'the periphery's sensemaking of partnerships, problems and social reality do not matter') and (4) interpretive marginalization related to gaze (mechanisms: 'the centre's learning needs, social sensitivities and status preservation must drive collective sensemaking'). Together, six mutually overlapping, reinforcing and dependent categories of context influence all 12 mechanisms: 'mislabelling' (the periphery as inferior), 'miseducation' (on structural origins of disadvantage), 'under-representation' (of the periphery on knowledge platforms), 'compounded spoils' (enjoyed by the centre), 'under-governance' (in making, changing, monitoring, enforcing and applying rules for fair engagement) and 'colonial mentality' (of/at the periphery). These context-mechanism-outcome linkages can inform efforts to redress unfair knowledge practices, investigations of unfair knowledge practices across disciplines and axes of inequity and ethics guidelines for health system research and practice when working at a social or physical distance.

COVID-19 vaccination strategies in Africa: A scoping review of the use of mathematical models to inform policy

OBJECTIVE

Mathematical models are vital tools to understand transmission dynamics and assess the impact of interventions to mitigate COVID-19. However, historically, their use in Africa has been limited. In this scoping review, we assess how mathematical models were used to study COVID-19 vaccination to potentially inform pandemic planning and response in Africa.

METHODS

We searched six electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Global Health, MathSciNet and Africa-Wide NiPAD, using keywords to identify articles focused on the use of mathematical modelling studies of COVID-19 vaccination in Africa that were published as of October 2022. We extracted the details on the country, author affiliation, characteristics of models, policy intent and heterogeneity factors. We assessed quality using 21-point scale criteria on model characteristics and content of the studies.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 462 articles, of which 32 were included based on the eligibility criteria. Nineteen (59%) studies had a first author affiliated with an African country. Of the 32 included studies, 30 (94%) were compartmental models. By country, most studies were about or included South Africa (n = 12, 37%), followed by Morocco (n = 6, 19%) and Ethiopia (n = 5, 16%). Most studies (n = 19, 59%) assessed the impact of increasing vaccination coverage on COVID-19 burden. Half (n = 16, 50%) had policy intent: prioritising or selecting interventions, pandemic planning and response, vaccine distribution and optimisation strategies and understanding transmission dynamics of COVID-19. Fourteen studies (44%) were of medium quality and eight (25%) were of high quality.

CONCLUSIONS

While decision-makers could draw vital insights from the evidence generated from mathematical modelling to inform policy, we found that there was limited use of such models exploring vaccination impacts for COVID-19 in Africa. The disparity can be addressed by scaling up mathematical modelling training, increasing collaborative opportunities between modellers and policymakers, and increasing access to funding.

Building a framework to decolonize global emergency medicine

Background

Global emergency medicine (GEM) is situated at the intersection of global health and emergency medicine (EM), which is built upon a history of colonial systems and institutions that continue to reinforce inequities between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) today. These power imbalances yield disparities in GEM practice, research, and education.

Approach

The Global Emergency Medicine Academy (GEMA) of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine formed the Decolonizing GEM Working Group in 2020, which now includes over 100 worldwide members. The mission is to address colonial legacies in GEM and catalyze sustainable changes and recommendations toward decolonization at individual and institutional levels. To develop recommendations to decolonize GEM, the group conducted a nonsystematic review of existing literature on decolonizing global health, followed by in-depth discussions between academics from LMICs and HICs to explore implications and challenges specific to GEM. We then synthesized actionable solutions to provide recommendations on decolonizing GEM.

Results

Despite the rapidly expanding body of literature on decolonizing global health, there is little guidance specific to the relatively new field of GEM. By applying decolonizing principles to GEM, we suggest key priorities for improving equity in academic GEM: (1) reframing partnerships to place LMIC academics in positions of expertise and power, (2) redirecting research funding toward LMIC-driven projects and investigators, (3) creating more equitable practices in establishing authorship, and (4) upholding principles of decolonization in the education of EM trainees from LMICs and HICs.

Conclusions

Understanding the colonial roots of GEM will allow us to look more critically at current health disparities and identify inequitable institutionalized practices within our profession that continue to uphold these misguided concepts. A decolonized future of GEM depends on our recognition and rectification of colonial-era practices that shape structural determinants of health care delivery and scientific advancement.

Decolonising global health research: Shifting power for transformative change

Recent debates on decolonizing global health have spurred interest in addressing the power asymmetries and knowledge hierarchies that sustain colonial ideas and relationships in global health research. This paper applies three intersecting dimensions of colonialism (colonialism within global health; colonisation of global health; and colonialism through global health) to develop a broader and more structural understanding of the policies and actions needed to decolonise global health research. It argues that existing guidelines and checklists designed to make global health research more equitable do not adequately address the underlying power asymmetries and biases that prevail across the global health research ecosystem. Beyond encouraging fairer partnerships within individual research projects, this paper calls for more emphasis on shifting the balance of decision-making power, redistributing resources, and holding research funders and other power-holders accountable to the places and peoples involved in and impacted by global health research.

Authorship of Publications Supported by NCI-Funded Grants Involving Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Importance

Scientific publication is an important tool for knowledge dissemination and career advancement, but authors affiliated with institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are historically underrepresented on publications.

Objective

To assess the country income level distribution of author affiliations for publications resulting from National Cancer Institute (NCI)-supported extramural grants between 2015 and 2019, with international collaborating institutions exclusively in 1 or more LMICs.

Design and Setting

This cross-sectional study assessed authorship on publications resulting from NCI-funded grants between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019. Grants with collaborators in LMICs were identified in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Query/View/Report and linked to publications using Dimensions for NIH, published between 2011 and 2020. Statistical analysis was performed from May 2021 to July 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Author institutional affiliation was used to classify author country and related income level as defined by the World Bank. Relative citation ratio and Altmetric data from Dimensions for NIH were used to compare citation impact measures using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

Results

In this cross-sectional study, 159 grants were awarded to US institutions with collaborators in LMICs, and 5 grants were awarded directly to foreign institutions. These 164 grants resulted in 2428 publications, of which 1242 (51%) did not include any authors affiliated with an institution in an LMIC. In addition, 1884 (78%) and 2009 (83%) publications had a first or last author, respectively, affiliated with a high-income country (HIC). Publications with HIC-affiliated last authors also demonstrated greater citation impact compared with publications with LMIC-affiliated last authors as measured by relative citation ratios and Altmetric Attention Scores; publications with HIC-affiliated first authors also had higher Altmetric Attention Scores.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study suggests that LMIC-affiliated authors were underrepresented on publications resulting from NCI-funded grants involving LMICs. It is critical to promote equitable scientific participation by LMIC institutions in cancer research, including through current and planned programs led by the NCI.

The Fragmented Picture of Antimicrobial Resistance in Kenya: A Situational Analysis of Antimicrobial Consumption and the Imperative for Antimicrobial Stewardship

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) jeopardizes the effectiveness of essential antimicrobial agents in treating infectious diseases. Accelerated by human activities, AMR is prevalent in Sub-Saharan Africa, including Kenya, due to indiscriminate antibiotic use and limited diagnostics. This study aimed to assess Kenya's AMR efforts through a situational analysis of policy efficacy, interventions, and implementation, culminating in recommendations for strengthening mitigation. Employing two methodologies, this study evaluated Kenya's AMR endeavors. A systematic scoping review summarized AMR dynamic, and an expert validated the findings, providing an on-the-ground perspective. Antibiotic resistance is driven by factors including widespread misuse in human medicine due to irrational practices, consumer demand, and substandard antibiotics. Heavy antibiotic use in the agricultural sector leads to contamination of the food chain. The National Action Plan (NAP) reflects a One Health approach, yet decentralized healthcare and funding gaps hinder its execution. Although AMR surveillance includes multiple facets, diagnostic deficiencies persist. Expert insights recognize proactive NAP but underscore implementation obstacles. Kenya grapples with escalating resistance, but commendable policy efforts exist. However, fragmented implementations and complexities persist. Addressing this global threat demands investment in healthcare infrastructure, diagnostics, international partnerships, and sustainable strategies.

Evolving academic and research partnerships in global health: a capacity-building partnership to assess primary healthcare in the Philippines

Building fair, equitable, and beneficial partnerships between institutions collaborating in research in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and high-income countries (HIC) has become an integral part of research capacity building in global health in recent years. In this paper, we offer an example of an academic collaboration between the University of California Los Angeles, Center for Health Policy and Research (UCLA CHPR) and the University of Philippines, Manila, College of Public Health (UPM CPH) that sought to build an equitable partnership between research institutions. The partnership was built on a project to build capacity for research and produce data for policy action for the prevention and care of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) through primary healthcare in the Philippines. The specific objectives of the project were to: (1) locally adapt the Primary Care Assessment Tool for the Philippines and use the adapted tool to measure facility-level primary care delivery, (2) conduct focus group discussions (FGDs) to gather qualitative observations regarding primary care readiness and capacity, and (3) conduct a comprehensive population-based health survey among adults on NCDs and prior healthcare experience. We describe here the progression of the partnership between these institutions to carry out the project and the elements that helped build a stronger connection between the institutions, such as mutual goal setting, cultural bridging, collaborative teams, and capacity building. This example, which can be used as a model depicting new directionality and opportunities for LMIC-HIC academic partnerships, was written based on the review of shared project documents, including study protocols, and written and oral communications with the project team members, including the primary investigators. The innovation of this partnership includes: LMIC-initiated project need identification, LMIC-based funding allocation, a capacity-building role of the HIC institution, and the expansion of scope through jointly offered courses on global health.

Colonization and decolonization of global health: which way forward?

Despite taking on several forms throughout history such as colonial medicine, tropical medicine, and international health, the field of global health continues to uphold colonialist structures. History demonstrates that acts of colonialism inevitably lead to negative health outcomes. Colonial powers promoted medical advancements when diseases affected their own people, and only did so for locals when in the colonies' best interests. Numerous medical advancements in the United States also relied on the exploitation of vulnerable populations. This history is critical in evaluating the actions of the United States as a proclaimed leader in global health. A significant barrier to progress in the field of global health is that most leaders and leading institutions are located in high-income countries, thereby defining the global standard. This standard fails to meet the needs of most of the world. In times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, colonial mentalities may be more evident. In fact, global health partnerships themselves are often ingrained in colonialism and may be counterproductive. Strategies for change have been called into question by the recent Black Lives Matter movement, particularly in evaluating the role that less privileged communities should have in their own fate. Globally, we can commit to evaluating our own biases and learning from one another.

Hypertension treatment in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review

Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) faces the highest rate of hypertension worldwide. Blood pressure (BP) control rests on the association of lifestyle modification and antihypertensive medicines. We aimed to systematically review antihypertensive strategies implemented in SSA to achieve BP control. A systematic search beginning in 2003 was performed in MEDLINE, COCHRANE and EMBASE. We included only original and observational studies in SSA countries. Thirty studies were included from 11 countries. No study was multinational. The number of patients varied from 111 to 897 (median: 294; IQR: 192-478). Overall, 21% of patients received monotherapy, 42.6% two-drug and 26.6% three-drug combinations. Out of all the strategies, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers were mostly prescribed, followed by diuretics and calcium channel blockers. In monotherapy, RAS blockers were the first to be prescribed. Only 10 articles described antihypertensive strategies beyond triple combinations. BP control was highly variable (range: 16.4 to 61.2%). Multicentre studies performed in several SSA countries are needed to ensure international guidelines actually do improve outcomes in SSA.

Authorship Patterns in the Orthopaedic Journals of Low-Income and Lower-Middle-Income Countries

Background

Extensive research collaborations exist between researchers from high-income countries (HICs) and those from low-income countries (LICs) and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs). Previous research has suggested that authors from LICs and LMICs are underrepresented as first and last authors in the orthopaedic literature on local populations, particularly in LICs. We present a bibliometric analysis of authorship solely in studies published in orthopaedic journals that are based in LICs and LMICs.

Methods

The Global Index Medicus was queried, and all articles published from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2021, in journals with a focus on orthopaedic surgery that were based in an LIC or an LMIC were included. Logistic regressions were calculated to assess the predictors of local authorship.

Results

Over 92% of studies included in our analysis had first or last authors from LICs or LMICs. In terms of study type, the majority (89%) of studies were clinical, although largely of low-level evidence (78% of clinical studies were case reports, case series, or descriptive studies). None received funding. LIC or LMIC first authorship and last authorship were less likely for most types of nonclinical studies. LIC or LMIC first authorship was more likely when there were more study authors. LIC or LMIC first authorship and last authorship were less likely when there were more countries affiliated with the study authors. Finally, when compared with studies with only LIC or LMIC authors, those with a combination of HIC and LIC or LMIC authors had significantly lower rates of LIC or LMIC first authorship (93.3% versus 62.5%) and last authorship (97.7% versus 70.8%).

Conclusions

Our study presents one of the first analyses to assess authorship patterns in the orthopaedic literature of locally published journals in LICs and LMICs. Future studies are needed to contextualize our findings within a broader bibliometric landscape in order to better address the ongoing challenges to building research capacity in LICs and LMICs.

Clinical Relevance

Our study highlights important observations regarding authorship in international, collaborative research in orthopaedics.

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.

Bibliometric Analysis of Authorship of Publications About Sub-Saharan Africa Published in the Journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases , 2011 to 2020

BACKGROUND

As a potential indicator of equity in research partnerships, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of author affiliations and author order in publications about sub-Saharan Africa published in the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases .

METHODS

We identified articles in the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases that were about sub-Saharan Africa and published from 2011 to 2020. Medical Subject Heading terms in PubMed were used to identity articles about sub-Saharan Africa. Authors with at least 1 affiliation in sub-Saharan Africa were characterized as sub-Saharan Africa-affiliated authors.

RESULTS

Of the 1439 articles that were published in Sexually Transmitted Diseases from 2011 to 2020, 148 (10%) had a Medical Subject Heading term for a sub-Saharan African country. Of the 604 authors of these 148 articles, 53 (36%) of the first authors, 493 (53%) of the middle authors, and 58 (40%) of the last authors had a sub-Saharan African affiliation; 13 (8.8%) of the articles had no authors with a sub-Saharan African affiliation. The proportions of sub-Saharan African-affiliated authors in first and last authorship positions did not change significantly from 2011-2015 (77 articles) to 2016-2020 (71 articles).

CONCLUSIONS

The underrepresentation of Africans in first and last authorship positions suggests power imbalances in global scientific partnerships. Funders, researchers, editors, publishers, and grant and manuscript reviewers each have roles in promoting equity in global health research. This study may serve as an example for journals to establish benchmarks and monitor progress toward a more equitable research environment.

Faster, higher, stronger - together? A bibliometric analysis of author distribution in top medical education journals

INTRODUCTION

Medical education and medical education research are growing industries that have become increasingly globalised. Recognition of the colonial foundations of medical education has led to a growing focus on issues of equity, absence and marginalisation. One area of absence that has been underexplored is that of published voices from low-income and middle-income countries. We undertook a bibliometric analysis of five top medical education journals to determine which countries were absent and which countries were represented in prestigious first and last authorship positions.

METHODS

Web of Science was searched for all articles and reviews published between 2012 and 2021 within Academic Medicine, Medical Education, Advances in Health Sciences Education, Medical Teacher, and BMC Medical Education. Country of origin was identified for first and last author of each publication, and the number of publications originating from each country was counted.

RESULTS

Our analysis revealed a dominance of first and last authors from five countries: USA, Canada, UK, Netherlands and Australia. Authors from these five countries had first or last authored 70% of publications. Of the 195 countries in the world, 43% (approximately 83) were not represented by a single publication. There was an increase in the percentage of publications from outside of these five countries from 23% in 2012 to 40% in 2021.

CONCLUSION

The dominance of wealthy nations within spaces that claim to be international is a finding that requires attention. We draw on analogies from modern Olympic sport and our own collaborative research process to show how academic publishing continues to be a colonised space that advantages those from wealthy and English-speaking countries.

Exploring HIV/AIDS investigator perceptions of equity within research partnerships between low-and middle-income and high-income countries: a pilot survey

BACKGROUND

Recommendations for research partnerships between low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs) stress the importance of equity within the collaboration. However, there is limited knowledge of the practical challenges and successes involved in establishing equitable research practices. This study describes the results of a pilot survey assessing key issues on LMIC/HIC partnership equity within HIV/AIDS research collaborations and compares perspectives of these issues between LMIC- and HIC-based investigators.

METHODS

Survey participants were selected using clustered, random sampling and snowball sampling. Responses were compared between LMIC and HIC respondents using standard descriptive statistics. Qualitative respondent feedback was analyzed using a combination of exploratory and confirmatory thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The majority of categories within four themes (research interests and resources; leadership, trust, and communication; cultural and ethical competence; representation and benefits) demonstrated relative consensus between LMIC and HIC respondents except for 'lack of trust within the partnership' which was rated as a more pronounced challenge by LMIC respondents. However, subcategories within some of the themes had significant differences between respondent groups including: equitable setting of the research agenda, compromise within a partnership, the role of regulatory bodies in monitoring partnerships for equity, and post-study access to research technology.

CONCLUSIONS

These efforts serve as a proof-of-concept survey characterizing contemporary issues around international research partnership equity. The frequency and severity of specific equity issues can be assessed, highlighting similarities versus differences in experiences between LMIC and HIC partners as potential targets for further discussion and evaluation.

Lessons learnt from a scientific peer-review training programme designed to support research capacity and professional development in a global community

High-quality peer-reviewer training open to researchers across the globe has the potential to improve the published literature, however, this type of training is not widely available. In this paper, we describe an online peer-reviewer training programme, highlight its effectiveness in building peer review and writing skills, and discuss challenges and lessons learnt. This training programme, open to researchers across the globe, acquaints participants with challenges to and inequities in publishing and educates them about writing effective peer reviews. A focal point is how to provide specific and respectful feedback to help authors get accepted for peer review at an academic journal. Forty-nine participants from or residing in six continents completed the training. All programme evaluation respondents agreed that the orientation helped them gain a better understanding of their role as a peer reviewer at Pre-Publication Support Service. Most agreed that the training was helpful in improving their peer-review skills, and that the training was helpful in improving their writing skills. Participants wanted more networking and collaboration opportunities with other peer reviewers, inclusion of a qualitatively researched example paper and improved communication about the required time commitment. Our online programme with multiple time options was geographically inclusive but internet connectivity was challenging for some participants. Peer-reviewer training programmes can help researchers build their peer review and writing skills and enhance participants' understanding of disparities in publishing. Integrating a geographically diverse group of researchers has the potential to enrich the discussions and learning in such a programme.

Biological and Medicinal Chemistry in Africa

The young, fast-growing population of Africa means that harnessing the economic benefits of scientific research is critical to sustained and equitable growth in the continent. Moreover, the whole world would benefit from the added intellectual contribution that would come from nurturing African science. The high burden of neglected diseases in Africa makes chemical biology a particularly important field. In this editorial, the reconvergence of science conducted at the interface of chemistry and biology is placed in the context of African participation, its importance to global science and the unique blend of supporting and hindering factors that influence African scientific contributions. The new Biological and Medicinal Chemistry in Africa special collection showcases a broad spectrum of African chemical biology.

What does equitable global health research and delivery look like? Tackling Infections to Benefit Africa (TIBA) partnership as a case study

There is a current global push to identify and implement best practice for delivering maximum impact from development research in low-income and middle-income countries. Here, we describe a model of research and capacity building that challenges traditional approaches taken by western funders in Africa. Tackling Infections to Benefit Africa (TIBA) is a global health research and delivery partnership with a focus on strengthening health systems to combat neglected tropical diseases, malaria and emerging pathogens in Africa. Partners are academic and research institutions based in Ghana, Sudan, Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa and the UK. Fifteen other African countries have participated in TIBA activities. With a starting budget of under £7 million, and in just 4 years, TIBA has had a verified impact on knowledge, policy practice and capacity building, and on national and international COVID-19 responses in multiple African countries. TIBA's impact is shown in context-specific metrics including: strengthening the evidence base underpinning international policy on neglected tropical diseases; 77% of research publications having Africa-based first and/or last authors; postgraduate, postdoctoral and professional training; career progression for African researchers and health professionals with no net brain drain from participating countries; and supporting African institutions. Training in real-time SARS-CoV-2 viral genome sequencing provided new national capabilities and capacities that contributed to both national responses and global health security through variant detection and tracking. TIBA's experience confirms that health research for Africa thrives when the agenda and priorities are set in Africa, by Africans, and the work is done in Africa. Here, we share 10 actionable recommendations for researchers and funders from our lessons learnt.

Global health competencies in postgraduate medical education: a scoping review and mapping to the CanMEDS physician competency framework

Background

Global Health opportunities are popular, with many reported benefits. There is a need however, to identify and situate Global Health competencies within postgraduate medical education. We sought to identify and map Global Health competencies to the CanMEDS framework to assess the degree of equivalency and uniqueness between them.

Methods

JBI scoping review methodology was utilized to identify relevant papers searching MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Studies were reviewed independently by two of three researchers according to pre-determined eligibility criteria. Included studies identified competencies in Global Health training at the postgraduate medicine level, which were then mapped to the CanMEDS framework.

Results

A total of 19 articles met criteria for inclusion (17 from literature search and two from manual reference review). We identified 36 Global Health competencies; the majority (23) aligned with CanMEDS competencies within the framework. Ten were mapped to CanMEDS roles but lacked specific key or enabling competencies, while three did not fit within the specific CanMEDS roles.

Conclusions

We mapped the identified Global Health competencies, finding broad coverage of required CanMEDS competencies. We identified additional competencies for CanMEDS committee consideration and discuss the benefits of their inclusion in future physician competency frameworks.

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.

Striving towards true equity in global health: A checklist for bilateral research partnerships

Interest in "global health" among schools of medicine, public health, and other health disciplines in high-income countries (HIC) continues to rise. Persistent power imbalances, racism, and maintenance of colonialism/neocolonialism plague global health efforts, including global health scholarship. Scholarly projects conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) by trainees at these schools in HIC often exacerbate these problems. Drawing on published literature and shared experiences, we review key inequalities within each phase of research, from design through implementation and analysis/dissemination, and make concrete and practical recommendations to improve equity at each stage. Key problems facing global health scholarship include HIC-centric nature of global health organizations, paucity of funding directly available for LMIC investigators and trainees, misplaced emphasis on HIC selected issues rather than local solutions to local problems, the dominance of English language in the scientific literature, and exploitation of LMIC team members. Four key principles lie at the foundation of all our recommendations: 1) seek locally derived and relevant solutions to global health issues, 2) create paired collaborations between HIC and LMIC institutions at all levels of training, 3) provide funding for both HIC and LMIC team members, 4) assign clear roles and responsibilities to value, leverage, and share the strengths of all team members. When funding for global health research is predicated upon more ethical and equitable collaborations, the nature of global health collaborations will evolve to be more ethical and equitable. Therefore, we propose the Douala Equity Checklist as a 20-item tool HIC and LMIC institutions can use throughout the conduct of global health projects to ensure more equitable collaborations.

Overdue Assignment: A Case Study on Academic Writing Development for Postgraduate Health Professional Trainees in Kenya

OBJECTIVES

Though essential for research capacity building, development of authorial identity for thesis projects and publications has been overlooked in African postgraduate residency programs. This study aims to explore authorial identity among postgraduate health professional trainees at two universities in Kenya. It also evaluated the effect of Age of Acquisition of English on confidence in writing.

METHODS

This exploratory case study utilized quantitative and qualitative data. Pre- and post-workshop surveys were generated from learning objectives and evaluated confidence in writing and plagiarism awareness, both important attributes of authorial identity. As confidence in writing might be influenced by the English Age of Acquisition, the questionnaire also included items from the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire. Pre- and post-workshop responses were analyzed using planned comparisons. Focus group discussions further explored authorial identity among participants and were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

A total of 57 postgraduate trainees from nine medical specialties participated in the study. Both confidence in writing and plagiarism awareness improved significantly after the workshop: confidence in writing pre-test (M = 3.20, SD = 0.59) and post-test (M = 3.97, SD = 0.61), t(56) = 6.93, P < .001, d = 0.9; plagiarism awareness pre-test (M = 3.01, SD 0.72) and post-test (M = 3.92, SD 0.65), t(56) = 6,8, P < .001, d = 0.9. The average English Age of Acquisition was 4.98 years and showed no correlation with confidence in writing. Participants recognized that authentic authorship requires hard work and suggested plagiarism is driven by inadequate writing instruction. They proposed that changing perceptions of research and writing could overcome a graduation requirement mindset among trainees.

CONCLUSIONS

Interactive workshops using procedural and enculturation approaches may be useful to develop authorial identity among postgraduate health professionals in Kenya. Further research is needed on evaluating workshop effectiveness using direct indicators of learning and other curricular reforms to promote authorship.

A set of principles and practical suggestions for equitable fieldwork in biology

Field biology is an area of research that involves working directly with living organisms in situ through a practice known as "fieldwork." Conducting fieldwork often requires complex logistical planning within multiregional or multinational teams, interacting with local communities at field sites, and collaborative research led by one or a few of the core team members. However, existing power imbalances stemming from geopolitical history, discrimination, and professional position, among other factors, perpetuate inequities when conducting these research endeavors. After reflecting on our own research programs, we propose four general principles to guide equitable, inclusive, ethical, and safe practices in field biology: be collaborative, be respectful, be legal, and be safe. Although many biologists already structure their field programs around these principles or similar values, executing equitable research practices can prove challenging and requires careful consideration, especially by those in positions with relatively greater privilege. Based on experiences and input from a diverse group of global collaborators, we provide suggestions for action-oriented approaches to make field biology more equitable, with particular attention to how those with greater privilege can contribute. While we acknowledge that not all suggestions will be applicable to every institution or program, we hope that they will generate discussions and provide a baseline for training in proactive, equitable fieldwork practices.

Bibliometric analysis of sub-Saharan African and US authorship in publications about sub-Saharan Africa funded by the Fogarty International Center, 2008-2020

BACKGROUND

Authorship and author order have been used as one measure to characterise equity in research partnerships. First and last (senior) authorships often denote scientific merit as well as potential for research career advancement. A previous analysis found that only about 20%-25% of publications about Africa with coauthors from top-ranking US universities had a first or last author from the topic country. In this bibliometric analysis, we evaluated authorship of publications about sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) funded by the Fogarty International Center (FIC) of the US National Institutes of Health, an institution with a mission of training and capacity building in low-income and middle-income countries.

METHODS

We analysed publications from PubMed and Web of Science that were funded by FIC, about SSA, and published between 2008 and 2020. Relative citation ratio (RCR) data from iCite were used to compare group citation impact measures using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

RESULTS

A total of 3446 publications met the inclusion criteria, with annual number increasing from 114 in 2008 to 352 in 2020. SSA-affiliated first authors increased from 53 (47%) in 2008 to 224 (63%) in 2020. SSA-affiliated last authors increased from 32 (28%) to 166 (47%). For both first and last authorships, the median RCR value of publications with SSA-affiliated authors was lower than for US-affiliated authors (first authors: 0.84 vs 0.95, p=0.0021; last authors: 0.88 vs 0.91, p=0.010).

CONCLUSION

The increase in first and last authorships by SSA-affiliated authors of publications about SSA suggests increasing equity in research activities funded by FIC. Further investigation and actions are needed to establish how authorship reflects other aspects of equity, the implication of the lower RCR in papers with SSA-affiliated first and last authors and what policies and practices are needed to further promote equity in global health research.

Authorship Distribution and Under-Representation of Sub-Saharan African Authors in Global Oncology Publications

Local researchers must be engaged in research conducted in their populations. However, local authors from low- and middle-income countries are often under-represented in global health journals. This report aims to assess and describe the representation of authors in the Journal of Clinical Oncology Global Oncology (JCO GO).

Sub-Saharan African authors are under-represented in global onc publications →* more equity is needed. *The authors would like to use an arrow emoji in their tweet.

Publication of clinical trials on medicinal products: follow-up on trials authorized in Hungary

BACKGROUND

Clinical research should provide reliable evidence to clinicians, health policy makers, and researchers. The reliability of evidence will be assured once study planning, conducting, and reporting of results are transparent. The present research investigates publication rates, time until publication, and characteristics of clinical trials on medicinal products associated with timely publication of results, measures of scientific impact, authorship, and open access publication.

METHODS

Clinical trials authorized in Hungary in 2012 were followed until publication and/or June 2020. Corresponding scientific publications were searched via clinical trial registries, PubMed (MEDLINE), and Google.

RESULTS

Overall, 330 clinical trials were authorized in 2012 of which 232 trials were completed for more than 1 year in June 2020. The proportion of industry initiation was high (97%). Time to publication was 21 (22) months [median (IQR)]. Time to publication was significantly shorter when trials involved both European and non-European countries (26 vs 69 months [median]; hazard ratio = 0.38, 95% CI 0.22-0.66, p< 0.001), and were registered in both EU CTR and clinicaltrials.gov (27 vs 88 months; hazard ratio = 0.24, 95% CI 0.11-0.54; p< 0.001) based on survival analyses. A significant amount (24.1%) of unpublished clinical trial results were accessible in a trial register. The majority of available publications were published "open access" (70.93%). A minority of identified publications had a Hungarian author (21.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

We encourage academic researchers to plan, register and conduct trials on medicinal products. Registries should be considered as an important source of information of clinical trial results. Publications with domestic co-authors contribute to the research output of a country. Measurable domestic scientific impact of trials on medicinal products needs further improvement.

Assessing knowledge of and attitudes towards plagiarism and ability to recognize plagiaristic writing among university students in Rwanda

Plagiarism is a serious type of scholastic misconduct. In Rwanda, no research has been conducted to assess university students' attitudes and knowledge of plagiarism and if they have the skills to avoid plagiarizing. This study was conducted to assess knowledge of and attitudes towards plagiarism, as well as ability to recognize plagiaristic writing, among university students in Rwanda. An online questionnaire containing 10 knowledge questions, 10 attitude statements, and 5 writing cases with excerpts to test identification of plagiarism was administered between February and April 2021. Out of the 330 university students from 40 universities who completed the survey, 75.8% had a high knowledge level (score ≥ 80%), but only 11.6% had a high score in recognizing plagiaristic writing (score ≥ 80%). There was no statistically significant association between knowledge level and ability to recognize plagiaristic writing (P = 0.109). Lower odds were found in both diploma/certificate and bachelor students of having high knowledge as well as of having high ability to recognize plagiaristic writing than in master's students. Although respondents generally disapproved of plagiarism, approximately half of the respondents indicated that sometimes plagiarism is unavoidable, and self-plagiarism should not be punished in the same way as plagiarism of others' work. Inter-collegial collaboration on effective plagiarism policies and training programs is needed.

Global Oncology Authorship and Readership Patterns

PURPOSE

Global Oncology is the movement to improve equitable access to cancer control and care, recognizing challenges because of economic and social factors between high-, middle-, and low-income countries (HIC, MIC, and LIC, respectively). The JCO Global Oncology (JCO GO) is a major platform dedicated to publishing peer-reviewed research relevant to populations with limited resources. To assess the success of its goals of encouraging global interaction and increasing MIC and LIC engagement, we analyzed authorship and readership patterns.

METHODS

Metadata of logged views between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, of articles published in 2018 by JCO GO were identified using Google Analytics. The country of origin of each author and those who accessed the journal were categorized according to the 2019 income group World Bank Classification (WBC).

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-two articles were published in JCO GO in 2018. Corresponding authors came from 34 nations: 35% HIC, 47% MIC, and 18% LIC. The top publishing countries were the United States, India, Brazil, Mexico, and Nigeria. Article authors were solely from within one WBC group in 41% (23% HIC, 16% MIC, and 2% LIC). In those with mixed-WBC authorship origins, collaborations were 42% HIC + MIC, 11% HIC + LIC, and 6% HIC + MIC + LIC, but none with MIC + LIC. Regarding viewing, 87,860 views originated from 180 countries (82% of the WBC list): 35% HIC, 51% MIC, and 14% LIC. The most common accessing nations were the United States, India, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and Ethiopia.

CONCLUSION

More than half of JCO GO's authorship comes from mixed WBC groups, with viewership extending to most of the world's nations. Areas to address are low level of LIC corresponding authors, few papers from authors across all WBC groups, no publications from MIC + LIC collaborations, and a low percentage of readership by LIC. These data provide focus to target interventions aimed at reducing the academic segregation of LIC and improving interactions across all WBC countries.

Predicting Infectious Diseases: A Bibliometric Review on Africa

Africa has a long history of novel and re-emerging infectious disease outbreaks. This reality has attracted the attention of researchers interested in the general research theme of predicting infectious diseases. However, a knowledge mapping analysis of literature to reveal the research trends, gaps, and hotspots in predicting Africa’s infectious diseases using bibliometric tools has not been conducted. A bibliometric analysis of 247 published papers on predicting infectious diseases in Africa, published in the Web of Science core collection databases, is presented in this study. The results indicate that the severe outbreaks of infectious diseases in Africa have increased scientific publications during the past decade. The results also reveal that African researchers are highly underrepresented in these publications and that the United States of America (USA) is the most productive and collaborative country. The relevant hotspots in this research field include malaria, models, classification, associations, COVID-19, and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, weather-based prediction using meteorological factors is an emerging theme, and very few studies have used the fourth industrial revolution (4IR) technologies. Therefore, there is a need to explore 4IR predicting tools such as machine learning and consider integrated approaches that are pivotal to developing robust prediction systems for infectious diseases, especially in Africa. This review paper provides a useful resource for researchers, practitioners, and research funding agencies interested in the research theme—the prediction of infectious diseases in Africa—by capturing the current research hotspots and trends.

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.

A roadmap to increase diversity in genomic studies

Two decades ago, the sequence of the first human genome was published. Since then, advances in genome technologies have resulted in whole-genome sequencing and microarray-based genotyping of millions of human genomes. However, genetic and genomic studies are predominantly based on populations of European ancestry. As a result, the potential benefits of genomic research-including better understanding of disease etiology, early detection and diagnosis, rational drug design and improved clinical care-may elude the many underrepresented populations. Here, we describe factors that have contributed to the imbalance in representation of different populations and, leveraging our experiences in setting up genomic studies in diverse global populations, we propose a roadmap to enhancing inclusion and ensuring equal health benefits of genomics advances. Our Perspective highlights the importance of sincere, concerted global efforts toward genomic equity to ensure the benefits of genomic medicine are accessible to all.

A Protocol for a Scoping Review Comparative Bibliometric Analysis of Infectious Disease Research in Africa

Introduction: Evidence on authorship trends of health research conducted about or in Africa shows that there is a lack of local researchers in the first and last authorship positions, with high income country collaborations taking up these positions. The differences in authorship calls into question power imbalances in global health research and who benefits from the production of new discoveries and innovations. Health studies may further go on to inform policy and clinical practice within the region having an impact on public health. This paper aims to compare the differences in authorship between COVID-19 and relevant infectious diseases in Africa. Materials and Methods: We will conduct a bibliometric analysis comparing authorship for COVID-19 research during a public health emergency with authorship for four other infectious diseases of relevance to Africa namely: Ebola, Zika Virus (ZIKV), Tuberculosis (TB) and Influenza. Our scoping review will follow the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and reviewed by Levac et al. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), African Index Medicus (AIM), Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR) Index Medicus, Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science (Clarivate). We will compare the different trends of disease research between the selected diseases. This study is registered with OSF registries and is licensed with the Academic Free License version 3.0. The open science registration number is 10.17605/OSF.IO/5ZPGN.

Low incidence of COVID-19 case severity and mortality in Africa; Could malaria co-infection provide the missing link?

Background

Despite reports of malaria and coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) co-infection, malaria-endemic regions have so far recorded fewer cases of COVID-19 and deaths from COVID-19, indicating a probable protection from the poor outcome of COVID-19 by malaria. On the contrary, other evidence suggests that malaria might contribute to the death caused by COVID-19. Hence, this paper reviewed existing evidence hypothesizing poor outcome or protection of COVID-19 patients when co-infected with malaria.

Methods

PRISMA guidelines for systematic review were employed in this study. Published articles from December 2019 to May 2021on COVID-19 and malaria co-infection and outcome were systematically searched in relevant and accessible databases following a pre-defined strategy. Studies involving human, in vivo animal studies, and in vitro studies were included.

Results

Twenty three (23) studies were included in the review out of the 3866 records identified in the selected scientific databases. Nine (9) papers reported on co-infection of COVID-19 and malaria. Five (5) papers provided information about synergism of malaria and COVID-19 poor prognosis, 2 papers reported on syndemic of COVID-19 and malaria intervention, and 7 studies indicated that malaria protects individuals from COVID-19.

Conclusions

Low incidence of COVID-19 in malaria-endemic regions supports the hypothesis that COVID-19 poor prognosis is prevented by malaria. Although further studies are required to ascertain this hypothesis, cross-immunity and common immunodominant isotopes provide strong evidence to support this hypothesis. Also, increase in co-inhibitory receptors and atypical memory B cells indicate synergy between COVID-19 and malaria outcome, though, more studies are required to make a definite conclusion.

Low incidence and mortality rate of COVID-19 in malaria endemic regions

There have been reports of malaria and COVID-19 co-infection

Malaria could be the link for the reported low incidence of COVID-19 in Africa

Cross immunity and common immunodominant epitopes between Malaria and COVID-19, and antimalaria drugs could be the reason for observed low fatality and incidence rate of COVID-19 in malaria endemic regions.

Malaria infection and deaths could increase amid the COVID-19 pandemic due to interrupted malaria control 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.

Authorship trends in infectious diseases society of America affiliated journal articles conducted in low-income countries, 1998-2018

An increasing amount of infectious diseases research is conducted in low-income countries (LIC) given their high burden of disease; however, the contribution of LIC investigators as measured by authorship metrics, specifically to infectious diseases research, has not been thoroughly studied. We performed a literature search for primary research conducted either within LICs or using samples from LIC participants published between 1998-2017 in the Infectious Disease Society of America-affiliated journals Clinical Infectious Diseases, Journal of Infectious Diseases, and Open Forum Infectious Diseases. Primary outcomes included proportion of LIC-affiliated first and last authors (i.e. lead authors) per year and authorship trends over time. Secondary outcomes included proportion of LIC-affiliated authorship by geographic distribution and disease focus. Among 1308 publications identified, 50% had either a first or last LIC-affiliated author. Among these authors, 48% of LIC-affiliated first authors and 52% of LIC-affiliated last authors also reported a non-LIC institutional affiliation. While the absolute number of articles by LIC-affiliated lead authors increased over the 20-year period, the proportion of articles with LIC-affiliated lead authors decreased. There is a growing literature for infectious disease research conducted in LICs yet authorship trends in a small subset of these publications demonstrate a pronounced and worsening exclusion of LIC-affiliated investigators from publishing as lead authors.

A mixed methods needs assessment and gap analysis for establishment of a cancer research training program in East Africa

Background

The burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including cancer, in Africa is rising. Policymakers are charged with formulating evidence-based cancer control plans; however, there is a paucity of data on cancers generated from within Africa. As part of efforts to enhance cancer research training in East Africa, we performed a needs assessment and gap analysis of cancer-related research training resources in Tanzania.

Methods

A mixed-methods study to evaluate existing individual, institutional, and national resources supporting cancer research training in Tanzania was conducted. Qualitative data were collected using in-depth interviews while quantitative data were collected using self-administered questionnaires and online surveys. The study also included a desk-review of policy and guidelines related to NCD research and training. Study participants were selected to represent five groups: (i) policymakers; (ii) established researchers; (iii) research support personnel; (iv) faculty members in degree training programs; and (v) post-graduate trainees.

Results

Our results identified challenges in four thematic areas. First, there is a need for coordination and monitoring of the cancer research agenda at the national level. Second, both faculty and trainees identified the need for incorporation of rigorous training to improve research competencies. Third, sustained mentoring and institutional investment in development of mentorship resources is critical to empowering early career investigators. Finally, academic institutions can enhance research outputs by providing adequate research infrastructure, prioritizing protected time for research, and recognizing research accomplishments by trainees and faculty.

Conclusions

As we look towards establishment of cancer research training programs in East Africa, investment in the development of rigorous research training, mentorship resources, and research infrastructure will be critical to empowering local health professionals to engage in cancer research activities.

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.

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.

Twenty steps to ingrain power asymmetry in global health biomedical research

Health research in low‐income settings must prioritize sustainability in order to truly impact target diseases in the long term; this Perspective article satirically summarizes how biomedical investigators from high-income countries can collaboratively work to (not) accomplish this.

Unequal ecosystems of global health authorial expertise: Decolonising noncommunicable disease

The decolonisation agenda is gathering momentum in global health. Within this movement, one domain of analysis has been the ways in which the geographies of scholarly knowledge production (re)produce the inequities of coloniality. Drawing on the example of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), here we deviate from this and instead examine the authorship of the key global documents that were used to ignite and mobilise the NCD advocacy agenda from 2000 to 2020. In doing so, we reflect on the changing ecosystems of authorial expertise. It shows that while the geographic distribution of expertise has broadened over time, the NCD domain remains a fairly tight and circumscribed network. Importantly this research also shows the complexities of ascribing location to expertise, a finding that speaks back to the decolonisation debate.

Reimagining authorship guidelines to promote equity in co-produced academic collaborations

Authorship of academic papers is a currency that can bring career advantages in academia and other industries. How authorship should be decided is not always clear, particularly in co-produced research with non-academic collaborators, for which existing authorship guidelines are largely silent. In this paper, we critically reflect on what constitutes written authorship in the context of co-produced health research. We present examples from our own work to illustrate the argument we make, including publishing a co-authored paper with non-academic partners. We consider questions of what constitutes authorship and how it is mutually understood. We discuss some of the opportunities and limits to participation and how these might translate into academic authorship as a collaborative research output. Finally, we explore the potential of authorship guidelines as a resource for critical reflection on what we mean by co-produced work and how we recognise contributions to global health research. We suggest that authorship guidelines should be adapted to encourage attribution of co-produced research to include non-academic as well as academic collaborators, and we provide a draft guideline for how this might be done.