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

Reflective questioning to guide socially just global health reform: a narrative review and expert elicitation

Recent research has highlighted the impacts of colonialism and racism in global health, yet few studies have presented concrete steps toward addressing the problems. We conducted a narrative review to identify published evidence that documented guiding frameworks for enhancing equity and inclusion in global health research and practice (GHRP). Based on this narrative review, we developed a questionnaire with a series of reflection questions related on commonly reported challenges related to diversity, inclusion, equity, and power imbalances. To reach consensus on a set of priority questions relevant to each theme, the questionnaire was sent to a sample of 18 global health experts virtually and two rounds of iterations were conducted. Results identified eight thematic areas and 19 reflective questions that can assist global health researchers and practitioners striving to implement socially just global health reforms. Key elements identified for improving GHRP include: (1) aiming to understand the historical context and power dynamics within the areas touched by the program; (2) promoting and mobilizing local stakeholders and leadership and ensuring measures for their participation in decision-making; (3) ensuring that knowledge products are co-produced and more equitably accessible; (4) establishing a more holistic feedback and accountability system to understand needed reforms based on local perspectives; and (5) applying systems thinking to addressing challenges and encouraging approaches that can be sustained long-term. GHRP professionals should reflect more deeply on how their goals align with those of their in-country collaborators. The consistent application of reflective processes has the potential to shift GHRP towards increased equity.

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.

Mapping author taxonomies and author criteria: good practices for thinking through complex authorship situations

Authorship criteria can be difficult to apply in complex situations, such as multicenter clinical trials, multidisciplinary research, or manuscripts reporting the results of several studies. Authors may need additional guidance to appropriately credit their colleagues even when using existing accepted author criteria and/or contributor taxonomies to guide their decisions. Definitions and explanations of authorship by various editorial groups such as International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the World Association of Medical Editors, and the Council of Science Editors emphasize intellectual input and accountability. Existing contributor taxonomies list additional activities that should be credited, but do not stand in for authorship criteria or confer authorship. The literature was searched for existing guidelines for authors that suggest how to apply accepted authorship criteria to activities listed in contributor taxonomies. No publication was identified that mapped specific authorship criteria to particular contributor taxonomies. Suggestions were developed to assist in differentiating activities that meet author criteria from other contributions outlined in two existing contributor taxonomies.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Supplementary Information

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