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

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.

Low-Cost Innovations in Global Cardiac Surgery

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, costing the lives of 18 million people annually, with up to one-third being attributable to cardiac surgical conditions. Approximately 6 billion people do not have access to safe, timely, and affordable cardiac surgery, predominantly affecting populations living in low-middle income countries. Cardiac surgical care is costly, resulting in few centers in variable-resource contexts operating continuously or with the resources observed in higher-resource environments. As a result, innovations may be formally developed or informally adopted to bypass resource constraints and ensure care delivery. Innovations have been observed across the cardiac surgical care continuum and across settings, potentially benefiting both high-income countries, where growing health care costs are becoming unsustainable, and low- and middle-income countries, where competing health agendas may limit investments into cardiac surgery. This narrative review attempts to address the costs associated with cardiac surgery, placing an emphasis on frugal innovations in the perioperative and postoperative care spectrum.

Medical Teacher's equity diversity inclusion policy

Medical Teacher is a leading international journal in health professions education. The Journal recognizes its responsibility to publish papers that reflect the breadth of topics that meet the needs of its readers around the globe including contributions from countries underrepresented in the health professions education arena. This paper sets out the Journal's policy with regard to Equity Diversity Inclusion (EDI) and the steps to be taken to implement the policy in practice.

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.

Strengthening Global Health Research

Global Health is a young discipline with equity of health and services as its core value. The discipline has a tradition of close links between practice and research in line with the 'Health for All' declaration launched by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1978. The multitude of existential health crises facing mankind require a research agenda in line with Global Health Research core values and methods, such as transdisciplinary collaboration, long time series of population-based observations and multifaceted interventions. Knowledge gaps cover climate effects on health and mechanisms for global spread and control of antibiotic resistance across species. Such health threats are preferably studied at Health and Demographic Surveillance Sites, a scientific infrastructure for Global Health Research in Africa and Asia, that gains to expand and monitor climate parameters and include sites in the northern hemisphere. Global Health Scientists together with science societies can ensure long-term funding of a global network of population-based health-climate sites. Global Health Scientists and scientific journals should jointly provide data and evidence on global health to governance bodies on regional, national and global levels, in particular to WHO and United Nations in charge of the programme with Sustainable Development Goals.

Authorship inequalities in global health research: the IeDEA Southern Africa collaboration

BACKGROUND

The International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS conducts research in several regions, including in Southern Africa. We assessed authorship inequalities for the Southern African region, which is led by South African and Swiss investigators.

METHODS

We analysed authorships of publications from 2007 to 2020 by gender, country income group, time and citation impact. We used 2020 World Bank categories to define income groups and the relative citation ratio (RCR) to assess citation impact. Authorship parasitism was defined as articles without authors from the countries where the study was conducted. A regression model examined the probability of different authorship positions.

RESULTS

We included 313 articles. Of the 1064 contributing authors, 547 (51.4%) were women, and 223 (21.0%) were from 32 low-income/lower middle-income countries (LLMICs), 269 (25.3%) were from 13 upper middle-income countries and 572 (53.8%) were from 25 high-income countries (HICs). Most articles (150/157, 95.5%) reporting data from Southern Africa included authors from all participating countries. Women were more likely to be the first author than men (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.83) but less likely to be last authors (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.99). Compared with HIC, LLMIC authors were less likely to publish as first (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.41) or last author (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.42). The proportion of women and LLMIC first and last authors increased over time. The RCR tended to be higher, indicating greater impact, if first or last authors were from HIC (p=0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of a global health collaboration co-led by South African and Swiss investigators showed little evidence of authorship parasitism. There were stark inequalities in authorship position, with women occupying more first and men more last author positions and researchers from LLMIC being 'stuck in the middle' on the byline. Global health research collaborations should monitor, analyse and address authorship inequalities.

A review and analysis of accountability in global health funding, research collaborations and training: towards conceptual clarity and better practice

INTRODUCTION

Accountability is a complex idea to unpack and involves different processes in global health practice. Calls for accountability in global health would be better translated to action through a better understanding of the concept and practice of accountability in global health. We sought to analyse accountability processes in practice in global health funding, research collaborations and training.

METHODS

This study is a literature review that systematically searched PubMed and Scopus for articles on formal accountability processes in global health. We charted information on processes based on accountability lines ('who is accountable to whom') and the outcomes the processes were intended for ('accountability for what'). We visualised the representation of accountability in the articles by mapping the processes according to their intended outcomes and the levels where processes were implemented.

RESULTS

We included 53 articles representing a wide range of contexts and identified 19 specific accountability processes for various outcomes in global health funding, research collaborations and training. Target setting and monitoring were the most common accountability processes. Other processes included interinstitutional networks for peer checking, litigation strategies to enforce health-related rights, special bodies that bring actors to account for commitments, self-accountability through internal organisational processes and multipolar accountability involving different types of institutional actors. Our mapping identified gaps at the institutional, interinstitutional and broader system levels where accountability processes could be enhanced.

CONCLUSION

To rebalance power in global health, our review has shown that analysing information on existing accountability processes regarding 'who is accountable to whom' and 'accountability for what' would be useful to characterise existing lines of accountability and create lines where there are gaps. However, we also suggest that institutional and systems processes for accountability must be accompanied by political engagement to mobilise collective action and create conditions where a culture of accountability thrives in global health.

Allocation of authorship and patient enrollment among global clinical trials in oncology

BACKGROUND

Oncology randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly global in scope. Whether authorship is equitably shared between investigators from high-income countries (HIC) and low-middle/upper-middle incomes countries (LMIC/UMIC) is not well described. The authors conducted this study to understand the allocation of authorship and patient enrollment across all oncology RCTs conducted globally.

METHODS

A cross-sectional retrospective cohort study of phase 3 RCTs (published 2014-2017) that were led by investigators in HIC and recruited patients in LMIC/UMIC.

FINDINGS

During 2014-2017, 694 oncology RCTs were published; 636 (92%) were led by investigators from HIC. Among these HIC-led trials, 186 (29%) enrolled patients in LMIC/UMIC. One-third (33%, 62 of 186) of RCTs had no authors from LMIC/UMIC. Forty percent (74 of 186) of RCTs reported patient enrollment by country; in 50% (37 of 74) of these trials, LMIC/UMIC contributed <15% of patients. The relationship between enrollment and authorship proportion is very strong and is comparable between LMIC/UMIC and HIC (Spearman's ρ LMIC/UMIC 0.824, p < .001; HIC 0.823, p < .001). Among the 74 trials that report country enrollment, 34% (25 of 74) have no authors from LMIC/UMIC.

CONCLUSIONS

Among trials that enroll patients in HIC and LMIC/UMIC, authorship appears to be proportional to patient enrollment. This finding is limited by the fact that more than half of RCTs do not report enrollment by country. Moreover, there are important outliers as a significant proportion of RCTs had no authors from LMIC/UMIC despite enrolling patients in these countries. The findings in this study reflect a complex global RCT ecosystem that still underserves cancer control outside high-income settings.

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.

Breast Cancer Germline Genetic Counseling and Testing for Populations of African Heritage Globally: A Scoping Review on Research, Practice, and Bioethical Considerations

PURPOSE

Despite the disproportionately high risk of breast cancer among women of African heritage, little is known about the facilitators and barriers to implementing germline genetic testing and counseling (GT/C).

METHODS

This scoping review followed guidelines recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. Published manuscripts from database inception through 2021 were sourced from PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature via EBSCO, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Search terms were used to retrieve articles addressing (1) African heritage, (2) breast cancer, and (3) GT or GC. The screening involved abstract and title review and full-text review. Data were extracted for all articles meeting the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 154 studies were included. Most studies that took place were conducted in the United States (71.4%), and most first authors (76.9%) were from the United States. GT was conducted in 73 (49.7%) studies. BRCA1/BRCA2 were the most commonly studied genes for germline mutations. GC was conducted in 49 studies (33.3%), and perspectives on GC were evaluated in 43 (29.3%). The use of racial/ethnic categories varied broadly, although African American was most common (40.1%). Racism was mentioned in three studies (2.0%).

CONCLUSION

There is a growing body of literature on GT/C for breast cancer in women of African heritage. Future studies on GT/C of African populations should consider increased clarity around racial/ethnic categorizations, continued community engagement, and intentional processes for informed consent.

A pragmatic approach to equitable global health partnerships in academic health sciences

Global partnerships offer opportunities for academic departments in the health sciences to achieve mutual benefits. However, they are often challenged by inequities in power, privilege and finances between partners that have plagued the discipline of global health since its founding. In this article, a group of global health practitioners in academic medicine offer a pragmatic framework and practical examples for designing more ethical, equitable and effective collaborative global relationships between academic health science departments, building on the principles laid out by the coalition Advocacy for Global Health Partnerships in the Brocher declaration.

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.

Cancer research across Africa: a comparative bibliometric analysis

INTRODUCTION

Research is a critical pillar in national cancer control planning. However, there is a dearth of evidence for countries to implement affordable strategies. The WHO and various Commissions have recommended developing stakeholder-based needs assessments based on objective data to generate evidence to inform national and regional prioritisation of cancer research needs and goals.

METHODOLOGY

Bibliometric algorithms (macros) were developed and validated to assess cancer research outputs of all 54 African countries over a 12-year period (2009-2020). Subanalysis included collaboration patterns, site and domain-specific focus of research and understanding authorship dynamics by both position and sex. Detailed subanalysis was performed to understand multiple impact metrics and context relative outputs in comparison with the disease burden as well as the application of a funding thesaurus to determine funding resources.

RESULTS

African countries in total published 23 679 cancer research papers over the 12-year period (2009-2020) with the fractional African contribution totalling 16 201 papers and the remaining 7478 from authors from out with the continent. The total number of papers increased rapidly with time, with an annual growth rate of 15%. The 49 sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries together published just 5281 papers, of which South Africa's contribution was 2206 (42% of the SSA total, 14% of all Africa) and Nigeria's contribution was 997 (19% of the SSA total, 4% of all Africa). Cancer research accounted for 7.9% of all African biomedical research outputs (African research in infectious diseases was 5.1 times than that of cancer research). Research outputs that are proportionally low relative to their burden across Africa are paediatric, cervical, oesophageal and prostate cancer. African research mirrored that of Western countries in terms of its focus on discovery science and pharmaceutical research. The percentages of female researchers in Africa were comparable with those elsewhere, but only in North African and some Anglophone countries.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an imbalance in relevant local research generation on the continent and cancer control efforts. The recommendations articulated in our five-point plan arising from these data are broadly focused on structural changes, for example, overt inclusion of research into national cancer control planning and financial, for example, for countries to spend 10% of a notional 1% gross domestic expenditure on research and development on cancer.

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.

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.

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.