Promotion and Reporting of Research from Resource-Limited Settings

Siriwardhana, Chesmal

doi:10.4137/idrt.s16195

Cited by 25 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The challenges of appropriately assigning authorship may be conflated in global health partnerships . What we defined as authorship parasitism can be damaging to academic partnerships between HIC and LMIC authors and may further perpetuate ideas of power differentials . Some have suggested strategies such as alternating the first author position between HIC and LMIC contributors in ongoing collaborative research .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Rees

Lukolyo

Keating

et al. 2017

Tropical Med Int Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Rees

Lukolyo

Keating

et al. 2017

Tropical Med Int Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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

Rees

Keating

Dearden

et al. 2019

Tropical Med Int Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Real fairness means reallocation of resources, waivers for institutions unable to pay access or publishing fees, better sharing of skill sets, balanced review, and capacity building in resource-limited settings 22 .…”

Section: Future Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fairness in scientific publishing

Matthews

2017

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Major changes are afoot in the world of academic publishing, exemplified by innovations in publishing platforms, new approaches to metrics, improvements in our approach to peer review, and a focus on developing and encouraging open access to scientific literature and data. The FAIR acronym recommends that authors and publishers should aim to make their output Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable. In this opinion article, I explore the parallel view that we should take a collective stance on making the dissemination of scientific data fair in the conventional sense, by being mindful of equity and justice for patients, clinicians, academics, publishers, funders and academic institutions. The views I represent are founded on oral and written dialogue with clinicians, academics and the publishing industry. Further progress is needed to improve collaboration and dialogue between these groups, to reduce misinterpretation of metrics, to minimise inequity that arises as a consequence of geographic setting, to improve economic sustainability, and to broaden the spectrum, scope, and diversity of scientific publication.

show abstract

Promotion and Reporting of Research from Resource-Limited Settings

Cited by 25 publications

References 20 publications

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

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

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

Fairness in scientific publishing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About