Consensus statement on measures to promote equitable authorship in the publication of research from international partnerships

Abstract

Despite the acknowledged injustice and widespread existence of parachute research studies conducted in low- or middle-income countries by researchers from institutions in high-income countries, there is currently no pragmatic guidance for how academic journals should evaluate manuscript submissions and challenge this practice. We assembled a multidisciplinary group of editors and researchers with expertise in international health research to develop this consensus statement. We reviewed relevant existing literature and held three workshops to present research data and holistically discuss the concept of equitable authorship and the role of academic journals in the context of international health research partnerships. We subsequently developed statements to guide prospective authors and journal editors as to how they should address this issue. We recommend that for manuscripts that report research conducted in low- or middle-income countries by collaborations including partners from one or more high-income countries, authors should submit accompanying structured reflexivity statements. We provide specific questions that these statements should address and suggest that journals should transparently publish reflexivity statements with accepted manuscripts. We also provide guidance to journal editors about how they should assess the structured statements when making decisions on whether to accept or reject submitted manuscripts. We urge journals across disciplines to adopt these recommendations to accelerate the changes needed to halt the practice of parachute research.

Keywords: authorship; ethics; global health; health equity; international health; research; research ecosystem.

Figure 1

The position and power of journals within the global health research ecosystem. Journals influence the ecosystem by: (a) brokering research outputs which are predominantly led from HIC institutions; and (b) direct editorial statements (e.g. through ‘commissions’). These journal activities influence research prioritisation and funding allocation. The current predominance of HIC outputs and perspectives in journal activities further amplifies the impact of HIC perspectives on donor funding and research agendas. This can worsen existing inequities.