article · BMJ Global Health
Between 2016 and 2020, research conducted in low- and middle-income countries on global emergency medicine demonstrated substantial disparities in authorship representation. Across 1,751 examined articles comprising 14,113 authors, individuals affiliated with high-income countries accounted for 40.7 percent of all contributors. By contrast, researchers affiliated with low-income countries represented only 10.3 percent. High-income country researchers also dominated leading authorship positions, with local investigators holding only 31.0 percent of first-author and 21.3 percent of last-author roles in studies based in low-income countries. In single-country investigations, 8.7 percent lacked any locally affiliated authors, a figure rising to 14.4 percent for projects situated in low-income nations. Studies receiving funding from the study country and those based in upper middle-income nations were significantly more likely to feature local first authors.
Emergency medicine research in lower-income settings frequently relies on local healthcare systems without granting local researchers equitable academic visibility or leadership. These persistent imbalances highlight unequal partnerships between high-income and lower-income institutions. Understanding these disparities provides research institutions, funders, and journals with the evidence needed to reform collaboration agreements, support domestic funding streams, and promote equitable leadership in global health research.
The abstract does not indicate an application pathway.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
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 Χ2analysis. 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.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009538
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
