Local and foreign authorship of maternal health interventional research in low- and middle-income countries: systematic mapping of publications 2000–2012

Lukolyo

Tropical Med Int Health

et al. 2017

Abstractobjectives Interest in global health has increased greatly in the past two decades. Concomitantly, the number and complexity of research partnerships between high-income (HIC) and low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) has grown. We aimed to determine whether there is authorship parity (equitable representation and author order) or parasitism (no authors from study countries) in paediatric research conducted in LMICs.methods We reviewed all articles published from 2006 to 2015 in the four paediatric journals with the highest Eigenfactor scores. We limited our review to articles from LMICs and abstracted information on author affiliation and order, funding source and study design. We calculated Student's t-tests and chi-square using Fisher's exact test with Monte Carlo estimates.

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Lukolyo

Tropical Med Int Health

et al. 2017

“…However, these benefits accrue disproportionately to HIC investigators. 16,34,35 Nevertheless, in our study, nearly 90% of both LMIC and HIC respondents perceived academic global health collaboration to be beneficial as a whole. However, LMIC respondents were less likely to report collaborative pediatric research as beneficial than HIC investigators, perhaps reflecting the maldistribution of benefits in collaborative research.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 60%

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

The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

Dearden

et al. 2020

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

“…We solicited respondents’ demographics including educational training, location of residence and current employment position. We developed survey questions based on contents of previous studies and the ICMJE authorship criteria . ICMJE authorship criteria state that authors are those who meet all of the following four criteria: ‘Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data for the work; AND Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND Final approval of the version to be published; AND Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved' …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We solicited respondents' demographics including educational training, location of residence and current employment position. We developed survey questions based on contents of previous studies and the ICMJE authorship criteria [1,5,7,13,17,19]. ICMJE authorship criteria state that authors are those who meet all of the following four criteria:…”

Section: Survey Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Importance of authorship and inappropriate authorship assignment in paediatric research in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Tropical Med Int Health

Dearden

et al. 2019

Objective To understand the importance of authorship and authorship position, and gauge perceptions of inappropriate authorship assignment, among authors publishing paediatric research conducted in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Methods We conducted a cross‐sectional, mixed‐methods study using an online survey of both corresponding and randomly selected, non‐corresponding authors who published research conducted in LMICs from 2006 to 2015 in the top four paediatric journals by Eigenfactor score. We used chi‐square tests to compare responses by authors living in LMICs to authors living in high‐income countries (HICs). We analysed qualitative responses using thematic analysis. Results Of 1420 potential respondents, 19.6% (n = 279) completed the survey. 57% (n = 159) lived in LMICs and 43% (n = 120) in HICs. LMIC authors more commonly perceived first authorship as most important for their academic advancement than HIC authors (74.2% vs. 60.8%, P = 0.017), while HIC authors reported last authorship as most important (25.1% vs. 38.3%, P = 0.018). 65% (n = 181) of respondents believed that their collaborators had been inappropriately assigned authorship positions (no difference in LMIC and HIC responses) and 32.6% (n = 91) reported personally accepting inappropriate authorship positions (more common in HIC respondents, P = 0.005). In qualitative data, respondents questioned the applicability of standard authorship guidelines for collaborative research conducted in LMICs. Conclusions LMIC and HIC authors held different perceptions about the importance of authorship position. Reported inappropriate authorship assignment was common among both LMIC and HIC respondents. Alternatives to standard authorship criteria for research conducted in LMICs merit further studies.