Advanced glycosylation end products in tissue and the biochemical basis of diabetic complications.

M. Brownlee,A. Cerami,H. Vlassara

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198805193182007

IF: 158.5

1988-05-19

New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract:IN this seminar we review recent studies suggesting that the central pathologic features of diabetic complications are caused by the hyperglycemia-accelerated formation of nonenzymatic advanced gly...

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Bibliometric analysis of authorship patterns in publications from a research group at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 2016–2020

Iornum Shambe,Katherine Thomas,John Bradley,Tanya Marchant,Helen A Weiss,Emily L Webb

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-011053

IF: 8.056

2023-02-01

BMJ Global Health

Abstract:Background Authors from low and middle-income country (LMIC) institutions are under-represented in publications of research based in LMICs. This case study of publications from authors within the Medical Research Council International Statistics and Epidemiology Group (MRC-ISEG), a global health research group affiliated to the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in the UK, aims to describe patterns in authorship and factors associated with under-representation. Methods Papers were included if they were published between January 2016 and December 2020 inclusive, included an author from the MRC-ISEG and described work conducted in a LMIC. Authors’ affiliations were classified using World Bank country income classifications into LMIC affiliations only, high-income country (HIC) affiliations only and mixed LMIC/HIC affiliations. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to assess associations of author affiliation category with authorship position, and whether patterns varied by journal impact factor quartile and multiple versus single-country studies. Results A total of 882 papers, including 10 570 authors describing research conducted in 61 LMICs, were included. Compared with authors of HIC-only affiliation, those with LMIC-only affiliation were less likely to be in first authorship position (relative risk ratio (RRR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.60) and mixed HIC/LMIC affiliation authors were more likely (RRR=2.80, 95% CI 2.35 to 3.34). Compared with authors of HIC-only affiliation, those with LMIC-only affiliation were less likely to be in last authorship position (RRR=0.20, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.24) and those with mixed HIC/LMIC affiliations were more likely (RRR=1.95, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.30). The proportion of senior authors with LMIC-only affiliation was lowest for the highest impact journals, and in multicountry versus single-country studies. Conclusion Alongside increasing research capacity within LMICs, HIC institutions should ensure that LMIC-affiliated researchers are properly represented in global research. Academics working in global health should be judged on their involvement in representative collaborative research rather than individual achievements in authorship position.

public, environmental & occupational health
How global is global health research? A large-scale analysis of trends in authorship

Michelle C Dimitris,Matthew Gittings,Nicholas B King

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003758

Abstract:Many have called for greater inclusion of researchers from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the conduct of global health research, yet the extent to which this occurs is unclear. Prior studies are journal-, subject-, or region-specific, largely rely on manual review, and yield varying estimates not amenable to broad evaluation of the literature. We conducted a large-scale investigation of the contribution of LMIC-affiliated researchers to published global health research and examined whether this contribution differed over time. We searched titles, abstracts, and keywords for the names of countries ever classified as low-, lower middle-, or upper middle-income by the World Bank, and limited our search to items published from 2000 to 2017 in health science-related journals. Publication metadata were obtained from Elsevier/Scopus and analysed in statistical software. We calculated proportions of publications with any, first, and last authors affiliated with any LMIC as well as the same LMIC(s) identified in the title/abstract/keywords, and stratified analyses by year, country, and countries' most common income status. We analysed 786 779 publications and found that 86.0% included at least one LMIC-affiliated author, while 77.2% and 71.2% had an LMIC-affiliated first or last author, respectively; however, analagous proportions were only 58.7%, 36.8%, and 29.1% among 100 687 publications about low-income countries. Proportions of publications with LMIC-affiliated authors increased over time, yet this observation was driven by high research activity and representation among upper middle-income countries. Between-country variation in representation was observed, even within income status categories. We invite comment regarding these findings, particularly from voices underrepresented in this field.
Equity and Representation in Cardiology Research: A Comprehensive Analysis of Authorship from Low and Low-Middle income countries in Cardiology Journals

Diana De Oliveira-Gomes,Christian Guilliod,Karim Gebran,Alfonso Martinez de Majo,Gabriela Lombardo,Ruth Garcia,Victoria Abadi,Martha Gulati

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2024.102667

IF: 16.464

2024-05-25

Current Problems in Cardiology

Abstract:Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality, disproportionately affecting low-income and low-middle-income countries (LICs/LMICs). Despite this, cardiology research commonly comes from affluent regions. This study assessed the authorship trends from LICs/LMICs in cardiology journals listed in PubMed from 2000 to 2022. The World Bank list was used to classify countries. The total number of articles published in the 138 cardiology journals was 529,359. The percentage of articles that included at least one author affiliated with LICs/LMICs institutions was 0.11% and 2.23%, respectively. Over the last decade, there has been an increase in the author's representation from LICs/LMICs; however, it is uneven, with some countries experiencing more significant increases (Zambia, Yemen, and Uganda for LICs, and India, Iran, and Lebanon for LMICs). Our findings highlight the inequity of research publication and invite our community to reflect on the need to develop strategies to improve representation from LICs/LMICs.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Geographic, Subject, and Authorship Trends among LMIC-based Scientific Publications in High-impact Global Health and General Medicine Journals: A 30-Month Bibliometric Analysis

Marium Ghani,Rowan Hurrell,Avelino C. Verceles,Michael T. McCurdy,Alfred Papali

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/jegh.k.200325.001

2020-01-01

Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health

Abstract:The globalization of medical research and global health's increasing popularity worldwide have resulted in greater geographic, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity of studies published in the scientific literature. Yet the geographic distribution, authorship representation, and subject trends among Low-/Low-Middle-Income Country (LIC/LMIC)-based scientific publications remain largely unknown. This analysis assesses these gaps in knowledge. We performed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of all scientific articles published between January 2014 and June 2016 in the four most prominent general medicine and five most prominent general global health journals based on impact factor. The African region, containing 24% of the global LIC/LMIC population, accounted for 49.9% of all publications. Corresponding authors with either exclusive or joint appointment to a LIC/LMIC institution were present in 26.2% of all included articles. Over one-quarter (28.8%) of all publications did not list a local author. Nearly two-thirds (62.1%) of articles published in global health journals and roughly half (52.4%) in general medicine journals involved infectious diseases. Non-HIV infectious disease studies were by far the most frequent subject areas across all journals. The trends identified in this study may help to inform the evolution and prioritization of future research efforts, thereby allowing global health to remain truly global.

public, environmental & occupational health
Evaluation of Low- and Middle-Income Country Authorship in the Global Orthopaedic Literature

Jason Young,Rachel Chen,Soyoun Choi,Ian B Hayes,Paul A Bain,Collin May

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-22-00168

2023-02-17

Abstract:Introduction: Extensive research collaborations exist between high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), although prior work has raised concerns regarding equitable representation among LMIC authors. The goal of this bibliometric analysis was to characterize LMIC authorship among indexed orthopaedic journals and identify factors contributing to disparities in representation. Methods: We identified all articles appearing in orthopaedic journals indexed in MEDLINE and Journal Citation Reports with a focus on LMICs or cohorts between 2009 and 2018. All articles describing research conducted in LMICs or research focused on applications to cohorts in LMIC(s) were included. Author affiliation, article characteristics, and impact factor were assessed for 1,573 articles. Logistic regression models created to identify predictors of LMIC authorship. Results: We identified few studies published in indexed journals focused exclusively on LICs. Funded studies were less likely to have LMIC last authors. Compared with articles published in lower impact factor journals, those in journals with a higher impact factor were less likely to have a LMIC first or last author. The greater the number of countries represented per study, the less likely it had a LMIC first or last author. Conclusion: Our study highlights persistent disparities in authorship from LMICs in indexed orthopaedic journals.
Geographic Representation of Authorship in Ophthalmic Research from Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Ramoncito L Caleon,Elie Nziyomaze,Jean Damascene Imaniriho,Eric Manirakiza,Emmanuel Nsengiyumva,Duaa Sharfi,Ashlie Bernhisel,Tiliksew Teshome,Jacquelyn Jetton O'Banion

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2023.2291802

Abstract:Purpose: Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are underrepresented in ophthalmic research, despite carrying the highest burden of visual impairment. To assess the representation of local authors in global ophthalmic research, this cross-sectional, bibliometric analysis measured the proportion of LMIC-affiliated authorship in LMIC-based ophthalmic research. Methods: We sampled original, primary research conducted in LMICs and published in 1 of 7 high-impact ophthalmic journals between 2017 and 2021. For each article, we extracted the number and name of country study site(s), country affiliation(s) of first and last author, proportion of LMIC-affiliated authors, funding sources, and study design. Results: Of the 1,333 studies exclusively conducted in LMICs, 89.4% of first authors and 80.6% of last authors were exclusively LMIC-affiliated. Representation of LMIC-affiliated first authors were lower in studies based in low-income countries (25.0%) or in sub-Saharan Africa (26.5%), published in journals with higher impact factors (68.0% in Ophthalmology), funded by high-income countries (HICs) (41.4%), or conducted in both LMICs and HICs (27.1%). The United States, United Kingdom, and Australia had the 3rd, 6th, and 8th largest shares of last authors. There were only 12 single-country studies conducted in low-income countries, namely Ethiopia, the Gambia, Guinea, Liberia, the Niger, and Sierra Leone. Of these countries, only three held first authorship and one held last authorship. Conclusions: Although LMIC-based ophthalmic research has demonstrated higher local authorship representation compared to other fields, underrepresentation can be exacerbated by country income level, journal "prestige," and degree of HIC involvement. These discrepancies highlight the need for more equitable data ownership in global ophthalmic research.
Authorship inequalities in global health research: the IeDEA Southern Africa collaboration

Veronika W Skrivankova,Stefanie Hossmann,Morna Cornell,Marie Ballif,Carole Dupont,Jacqueline Huwa,Konstantinos Seintaridis,Thokozani Kalua,Gilles Wandeler,Reshma Kassanjee,Andreas D Haas,Karl-Gunter Technau,Lukas Fenner,Nicola Low,Mary-Ann Davies,Matthias Egger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-013316

2023-12-16

Abstract:Background: The International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS conducts research in several regions, including in Southern Africa. We assessed authorship inequalities for the Southern African region, which is led by South African and Swiss investigators. Methods: We analysed authorships of publications from 2007 to 2020 by gender, country income group, time and citation impact. We used 2020 World Bank categories to define income groups and the relative citation ratio (RCR) to assess citation impact. Authorship parasitism was defined as articles without authors from the countries where the study was conducted. A regression model examined the probability of different authorship positions. Results: We included 313 articles. Of the 1064 contributing authors, 547 (51.4%) were women, and 223 (21.0%) were from 32 low-income/lower middle-income countries (LLMICs), 269 (25.3%) were from 13 upper middle-income countries and 572 (53.8%) were from 25 high-income countries (HICs). Most articles (150/157, 95.5%) reporting data from Southern Africa included authors from all participating countries. Women were more likely to be the first author than men (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.83) but less likely to be last authors (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.99). Compared with HIC, LLMIC authors were less likely to publish as first (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.41) or last author (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.42). The proportion of women and LLMIC first and last authors increased over time. The RCR tended to be higher, indicating greater impact, if first or last authors were from HIC (p=0.06). Conclusions: This analysis of a global health collaboration co-led by South African and Swiss investigators showed little evidence of authorship parasitism. There were stark inequalities in authorship position, with women occupying more first and men more last author positions and researchers from LLMIC being 'stuck in the middle' on the byline. Global health research collaborations should monitor, analyse and address authorship inequalities.
Faster, higher, stronger – together? A bibliometric analysis of author distribution in top medical education journals

Dawit Wondimagegn,Cynthia Ruth Whitehead,Carrie Cartmill,Eloy Rodrigues,Antónia Correia,Tiago Salessi Lins,Manuel João Costa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-011656

IF: 8.056

2023-06-01

BMJ Global Health

Abstract:Introduction Medical education and medical education research are growing industries that have become increasingly globalised. Recognition of the colonial foundations of medical education has led to a growing focus on issues of equity, absence and marginalisation. One area of absence that has been underexplored is that of published voices from low-income and middle-income countries. We undertook a bibliometric analysis of five top medical education journals to determine which countries were absent and which countries were represented in prestigious first and last authorship positions. Methods Web of Science was searched for all articles and reviews published between 2012 and 2021 within Academic Medicine , Medical Education , Advances in Health Sciences Education , Medical Teacher , and BMC Medical Education . Country of origin was identified for first and last author of each publication, and the number of publications originating from each country was counted. Results Our analysis revealed a dominance of first and last authors from five countries: USA, Canada, UK, Netherlands and Australia. Authors from these five countries had first or last authored 70% of publications. Of the 195 countries in the world, 43% (approximately 83) were not represented by a single publication. There was an increase in the percentage of publications from outside of these five countries from 23% in 2012 to 40% in 2021. Conclusion The dominance of wealthy nations within spaces that claim to be international is a finding that requires attention. We draw on analogies from modern Olympic sport and our own collaborative research process to show how academic publishing continues to be a colonised space that advantages those from wealthy and English-speaking countries.

public, environmental & occupational health
Does diversity beget diversity? A scientometric analysis of over 150,000 studies and 49,000 authors published in high-impact medical journals between 2007 and 2022

Marie-Laure Charpignon,João Matos,Luis Nakayama,Jack Gallifant,Pia Gabrielle I Alfonso,Marisa Cobanaj,Amelia Fiske,Alexander J Gates,Frances Dominique V Ho,Urvish Jain,Mohammad Kashkooli,Liam G McCoy,Jonathan Shaffer,Naira Link Woite,Leo Anthony Celi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.21.24304695

2024-03-22

MedRxiv

Abstract:Background: Health research that significantly impacts global clinical practice and policy is often published in high-impact factor (IF) medical journals. These outlets play a pivotal role in the worldwide dissemination of novel medical knowledge. However, researchers identifying as women and those affiliated with institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) have been largely underrepresented in high-IF journals across multiple fields of medicine. To evaluate disparities in gender and geographical representation among authors who have published in any of five top general medical journals, we conducted scientometric analyses using a large-scale dataset extracted from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The British Medical Journal (BMJ), The Lancet, and Nature Medicine. Methods: Author metadata from all articles published in the selected journals between 2007 and 2022 were collected using the DimensionsAI platform. The Genderize.io API was then utilized to infer each author's likely gender based on their extracted first name. The World Bank country classification was used to map countries associated with researcher affiliations to the LMIC or the high-income country (HIC) category. We characterized the overall gender and country income category representation across the medical journals. In addition, we computed article-level diversity metrics and contrasted their distributions across the journals. Findings: We studied 151,536 authors across 49,764 articles published in five top medical journals, over a long period spanning 15 years. On average, approximately one-third (33.1%) of the authors of a given paper were inferred to be women; this result was consistent across the journals we studied. Further, 86.6% of the teams were exclusively composed of HIC authors; in contrast, only 3.9% were exclusively composed of LMIC authors. The probability of serving as the first or last author was significantly higher if the author was inferred to be a man (18.1% vs 16.8%, P < .01) or was affiliated with an institution in a HIC (16.9% vs 15.5%, P < .01). Our primary finding reveals that having a diverse team promotes further diversity, within the same dimension (i.e., gender or geography) and across dimensions. Notably, papers with at least one woman among the authors were more likely to also involve at least two LMIC authors (11.7% versus 10.4% in baseline, P < .001; based on inferred gender); conversely, papers with at least one LMIC author were more likely to also involve at least two women (49.4% versus 37.6%, P < .001; based on inferred gender). Conclusion: We provide a scientometric framework to assess authorship diversity. Our research suggests that the inclusiveness of high-impact medical journals is limited in terms of both gender and geography. We advocate for medical journals to adopt policies and practices that promote greater diversity and collaborative research. In addition, our findings offer a first step towards understanding the composition of teams conducting medical research globally and an opportunity for individual authors to reflect on their own collaborative research practices and possibilities to cultivate more diverse partnerships in their work.
Gender differences in publication in emergency medicine journals

Matthew E Purdy,Brittnee N Zmuda,Allyson M Owens,Vivek Choudhary,Ryder C Olsen,Julia O Bader,Chase M Donaldson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2021.06.039

Abstract:Background: Some studies have suggested gender disparities in both pay and academic promotion which may adversely affect salary and career progression for female physicians. The areas of research output, funding, and authorship have not been fully and systematically examined in the emergency medicine literature. We hypothesize that gender differences may exist in research output, impact, authorship, and funding. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study examining all published articles in the top three emergency medicine journals as determined by Impact Factor between February 2015 and February 2018. We compared the authorship, number of citations of each article, funding, and h-index of each author by gender. Results: Of the 10,118 authors representing 4166 original articles in our sample, 7562 (74.7%) were male and 2556 (25.3%) were female, with females underrepresented relative to the known proportion of female emergency medicine faculty. Males were proportionally more likely to be last authors (OR 1.65, 95% CI, 1.47-1.86) and less likely to be first authors than females (OR 0.85, 95% CI, 0.77-0.94). No difference in proportions of males and females in terms of being named as having funding was found (OR 1.02, 95% CI, 0.78-1.35). Males had higher h-indexes than females (5 vs. 3, p < .001) as well as a higher average number of citations (OR 1.068, 95% CI, 1.018-1.119). Conclusions: Males outnumber females in terms of numbers of publications, but also in number of citations, h-index, and last authorship. Future studies on physician gender disparities in emergency medicine need to account for these population differences.
Disparities in Global Authorship and Data Source in the Pediatric Blood and Cancer Journal 2011–2021: Realities and Strategies for Improvement

Kathryn Burns,Alexandra Martiniuk,Md Irteja Islam,Dominic Agyemang Opoku,Yuanhui Luo,Dorcas Malahlela,Anita Pickard,Elizabeth Sniderman,Julia Challinor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.31413

2024-11-09

Pediatric Blood & Cancer

Abstract:Background Research expands knowledge and improves outcomes. Research is needed in all settings, but most often occurs in high‐income countries (HIC) compared to low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Publication in scientific peer‐reviewed journals and authorship position are important for academic/clinical advancement. We explored the current state of global authorship and data source distribution for publications in the Pediatric Blood and Cancer (PBC) journal. Procedure LMIC‐affiliated author inclusion and position in selected article categories of the PBC (2011–2021) were recorded. Articles with at least one LMIC‐affiliated author (first‐listed affiliation) and 5% of exclusively HIC‐authored articles were verified. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed. Results Of 4504 articles reviewed, 593 (13%) included at least one LMIC‐affiliated author (517/593 [87%] as first author and 488/593 [82%]) as senior author. In a subset of articles with LMIC‐sourced data, 148/675 (22%) included exclusively HIC authors. Within the LMIC‐sourced data subset, 81/675 (12%) articles were mixed HIC/LMIC affiliation and 446/675 (66%) were exclusively LMIC‐affiliated. The frequency of LMIC‐affiliated authors as first or senior author within HIC/LMIC‐affiliated collaborations was 31/81 (38%) and 9/81 (11%), respectively. Conclusion As more than 80% of children live in LMICs and the WHO Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer is increasingly engaged across LMICs, all researchers/clinicians must justly be given an opportunity to conduct, write, publish, and be recognized for their research. PBC is uniquely poised to promote equitable publishing practices and opportunities for professional recognition by drawing on emerging best practices for equitable authorship, including potentially restructuring authorship guidelines and requirements.

oncology,pediatrics,hematology
Time to Reimagine Equity in Knowledge Generation

Dike Ojji,Angela Aifah,Ucheoma C. Nwaozuru

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.3410

2024-03-30

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Equity in research collaboration and scientific authorship remains an important topic, 1 especially among researchers in higher-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). 2 ,3 Elsewhere in JAMA Network Open , using a cross-sectional bibliometric assessment, Eldridge and colleagues 4 elucidate the representation of authors from LMICs on publications supported by National Cancer Institute (NCI)–funded grants in LMIC settings. Their findings highlight some progress in LMIC authorship representation and emphasize the need to promote equitable collaborations in global cancer research. Eldridge and colleagues 4 discuss the role of funding disparities and publication bias as factors partly contributing to disparities in authorship. While the findings provide a landscape of the disparities in scientific authorship representation for NCI-funded projects in LMICs in the past decade, bibliographic assessments, in general, offer only a snapshot and not the entirety of the story related to knowledge production and scholarship involving researchers in the LMICs. To democratize the process of knowledge generation, meaningful engagement of all global health partners in the production and dissemination of knowledge is crucial. 5 Using this lens as a global health expert and journal editor, Abimbola notes that advancing equity in global health is not only based on the lack of authorship representativeness per se but on the missed opportunity to showcase local knowledge, which inherently leads to what he termed "an intellectual deficit in academic global health." 5 In essence, the inequity in the inclusion of researchers from LMICs as authors is more about the deficit in the knowledge produced and disseminated rather than mere representation as coauthors. Discussions about equity in authorship must not only hinge on the obvious missingness of LMIC authorship representation noted through bibliometric assessments—a point noted by Eldridge et al. 4 While this is important to note, there is a need to shift the focus to address the fact that knowledge growth in global health is limited by not including LMIC researchers in the knowledge production process. Authorship representation or credit based on knowledge generation is important for scholarship—especially in LMIC settings—because, as Kharasch et al state, "authorship must be intellectual, not transactional." 1 And it is here that another relevant discussion point regarding authorship equity in global health research comes into focus, ie, the importance of capacity building. In particular, poor research capacity building and strengthening by HIC collaborators are missed opportunities for LMIC researchers to contribute to scholarship discussions. This deficit deprives the scientific community of epistemic diversity that can be achieved through equitable inclusion of learnings from researchers in LMICs. Ensuring that capacity building is an essential part of research grants and projects will also positively affect the career advancements of LMIC researchers, including early career investigators and women. The continued narrative on gaps in manuscript development skills among researchers in LMICs has to be changed through intentional capacity strengthening and building. 6 This cannot happen except with concerted and continuous efforts toward discovering the right researchers and building capacity in them. In the case of global cancer research in LMICs, Eldridge et al 4 note that recent efforts to strengthen the research environment and build the capacity of LMIC institutions and early career investigators, respectively, are based on successful models from the Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Importantly, they note that these successful training models embody principles of global health equity, eg, mutual respect and benefit, as well as clear partner roles and expectations. 4 Along with intentionally including capacity-building efforts, the role of funders and journal editors must be emphasized. Funders and journal editors can play a significant role in instituting equitable authorship practices in global health research partnerships. To this point, multiple global health researchers and editors 2 ,6 have offered guidance on revisiting the application of the scientific authorship criteria from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors 7 to promote equitable inclusion practices in global health research. We agree with their suggestion on pragmatic guidance for assessing involvement through reporting reflexivity statements to describe the ways in which equity was promoted in the partnership that produced the research. 2 Reflexivity statements are responses to a checklist of questions that auth -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
Global emergency medicine research priorities: a mapping review

Erin Kim,Prashant Mahajan,Chris Barousse,Vijaya A Kumar,Shu-Ling Chong,Apoorva Belle,Dominik Roth

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001182

2024-09-16

Abstract:Recognizing and prioritizing research areas in emergency care is crucial for generating evidence and advancing research programs, aiming to enhance health outcomes for both individuals and populations. The objective of this review is to document global clinical and nonclinical research priorities. The Emergency Medicine Education and Research by Global Experts network, consisting of 22 sites across six continents, conducted a mapping review of publications on emergency medicine research priorities (2000-2022) across seven databases. We included studies with replicable methodologies for determining research priorities, excluding those limited to individual diseases. Three reviewers independently screened, selected, and categorized results into clinical and nonclinical topics. Discrepancies were resolved by an independent investigator and consensus. Outcomes measures and analysis include descriptive analysis of research priorities grouped into clinical and nonclinical topics, characteristics of publications including countries represented in the author list, target audience (such as researchers or policy makers), participants (e.g. patients), and methods (e.g. Delphi) of priority setting. Among 968 screened papers, 57 publications from all WHO regions were included. Most (36, 63%) had authors from only a single country, primarily in North America and Europe. Patient representatives were included in only 10 (18%). Clinical research priorities clustered into resuscitation, cardiology, central nervous system, emergency medical services, infectious disease, mental health, respiratory disease, and trauma. Distribution was broad in North America and Europe but focused on infectious diseases and resuscitation in Africa and Asia. Eleven nonclinical topics included access to care, health policy, screening/triage, social determinants of health, staffing, technology/simulation, shared decision making, cross-sectoral collaboration, education, patient-centered care, and research networks. Nonclinical topics were broad in Europe and America, focused on access to care and health screening in Africa, and mostly absent in other WHO regions. Published research priorities in emergency medicine are heterogeneous and geographically limited, mostly containing groups of authors from the same country. The majority of publications in global research priority setting stem from Western countries, covering a broad spectrum of clinical and nonclinical topics. Research priorities from Africa and Asia tend to focus on specific issues more prevalent in those regions of the world.
Exploring the Evolution of Research Connectivity and Funding in Global Neurosurgical Publications

Andreas Seas,Liming Qiu,Emma Paradie,Jasmine Hughes,Pranav I Warman,Romaric Waguia-Kouam,Nathan A Shlobin,Kennedy Carpenter,Megan von Isenburg,Michael M Haglund,Anthony T Fuller,Alvan-Emeka K Ukachukwu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2024.09.029

2024-09-11

Abstract:Background: There are critical disparities in the neurosurgical care provided around the globe due to challenges in resource allocation, training, and infrastructure. Global neurosurgical collaborations have replaced classical mission trips to address these disparities. However, the development of these collaborations and the impact of research funding on their growth have not yet been systematically studied. In this article, we use a graph theoretical approach to investigate trends in funding and co-authorship between and among authors from high-income countries (HICs) and authors from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: A bibliometric search of the global neurosurgical literature returned 307 articles between 1985 and 2020. A connectivity analysis was conducted to compute the number of co-authorships between HIC-HIC, LMIC-HIC, and LMIC-LMIC authors. The number of connections, summarized as either a global sum of connections or an average number of connections per manuscript, were analyzed in the context of time and funding through parametric statistical tests. Results: An exponential increase in co-authorship collaboration was observed over time, especially after 2015. Notably, LMIC-LMIC collaborations appear to be rising at over twice the rate of other collaboration types. The presence of funding, in general, was associated with increased co-authorship of manuscripts by LMIC and HIC authors together (P = 0.033). A significant majority of the funding associated with LMIC-HIC co-authorships was supplied through charitable organizations and government grants (P = 0.034, P = 0.009, respectively). Most LMIC-LMIC co-authorships had no funding. Conclusions: This work shows significant and rapid growth in international neurosurgical partnerships, especially in HIC-LMIC and LMIC-LMIC collaborations. Also, a significant positive relationship exists between research funding and LMIC-HIC co-authorship trends. This work encourages us as a community to continue to expand our translational collaborations with LMIC neurosurgeons and establish funding mechanisms independent of HIC authors.
Scientific production in sexual and reproductive health and rights research according to gender and affiliation: An analysis of publications from 1972 to 2021

Livia Oliveira-Ciabati,Anna Thorson,Vanessa Brizuela

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304659

IF: 3.7

2024-06-26

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Introduction: Peer-reviewed literature is commonly used to assess academic progress and research excellency. However, representation in authorship of global health publications is biased and unfair. In order to shed light on current gaps towards attaining gender equality in scientific production and shift power asymmetries in global health research, we conducted an assessment of authorship trends from 1972 to 2021 with a focus on gender and geographic representation in scientific articles authored or co-authored by researchers affiliated with UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP). Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and HRP public reports for publications where at least one author was affiliated with HRP. Our main outcome measures were author gender and location of author affiliation, classified by region and country income group. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the publications under analysis as well as the total number of authors from the included papers. We applied a logistic regression model to explore associations between author gender and other characteristics of published articles and a time series analysis to assess how time can influence the inclusion of women as authors in a publication. Python and R were used for all analyses. Results: A total of 1,484 publications with 14,424 listed authors representing 5,950 unique authors were included in our analysis: 42.5% were female, 35.1% male, and 22.4% unknown (p<0.0001). First authorship was more likely female (56.9%) and from a high-income country (74.6%, p<0.0001) while last authorship was mostly male (53.7%) also from a high-income country (82.5%, p<0.0001). Females more frequently published papers using qualitative data (61.4%) and reviews/estimates (59.4%) while men published more case control (70.7%) and randomised controlled studies (53.0%), p<0.0001. The adjusted odds of there being a female author increased 4% for every additional year that passed. Conclusion: While there are more females authoring articles as compared to the past, they are still lagging behind with regards to seniority and prestige. Likewise, female representation is closely tied to what institution they are affiliated with and where that institution is located. Global health research institutions need to actively promote change by ensuring women are included in research and research outputs, giving them opportunities to lead.
More than just a hobby: building an academic career in global emergency medicine

Ian B K Martin,Adam C Levine,Stephanie Kayden,Mark Hauswald

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2013.11.123

Abstract:Background: As the specialty of emergency medicine (EM) continues to spread around the world, a growing number of academic emergency physicians have become involved in global EM development, research, and teaching. While academic departments have always found this work laudable, they have only recently begun to accept global EM as a rigorous academic pursuit in its own right. Objective: This article describes how emergency physicians can translate their global health work into "academic currency" within both the clinician-educator and clinician-researcher tracks. Discussion: The authors discuss the impact of various types of additional training, including global EM fellowships, for launching a career in global EM. Clearly delineated clinician-researcher and clinician-educator tracks are important for documenting achievement in global EM. Conclusions: Reflecting a growing interest in global health, more of today's EM faculty members are ascending the academic ranks as global EM specialists. Whether attempting to climb the academic ladder as a clinician-educator or clinician-researcher, advanced planning and the firm support of one's academic chair is crucial to the success of the promotion process. Given the relative youth of the subspecialty of global EM, however, it will take time for the pathways to academic promotion to become well delineated.
A review of authorship in herpes simplex virus type-2 (HSV-2) research conducted in low-income and middle-income countries between 2000 and 2020

Belinder Nahal,Ela Mair Owen,Muna Jama,Angela Obasi,Emily Clarke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012719

IF: 8.056

2024-07-01

BMJ Global Health

Abstract:Introduction Equitable inclusion of low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) researchers and women in research authorship is a priority. A review of progress in addressing WHO-identified priorities provided an opportunity to examine the geographical and gender distribution of authorship in herpes simplex virus type-2 (HSV-2) research. Methods Publications addressing five areas prioritised in a WHO workshop and published between 2000 and 2020 were identified. Data on author country, gender, authorship position and research funding source were collected by manuscript review and internet searches and analysed using IBM SPSS V.26. Results Of, 297 eligible papers identified, (n=294) had multiple authors. Of these, 241 (82%) included at least one LMIC author and 143 (49%) and 122 (41%) had LMIC first and last authors, respectively. LMICs funded studies were more than twice as likely to include an LMIC first or last author as high-income country-funded studies (relative risk 2.36, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.89). Respectively, 129 (46%) and 106 (36%) studies had female first and last authors. LMIC first and last authorship varied widely by HSV-2 research area and increased over time to 65% and 59% by 2015–2020. Conclusion Despite location of the research itself in LMIC settings, over the 20-year period, LMIC researchers held only a minority of first and last authorship positions. While LMIC representation in these positions improved over time, important inequities remain in key research areas and for women. Addressing current and historical power disparities in global health research, research infrastructure and how it is funded may be key addressing to addressing these issues.

public, environmental & occupational health
Collaborative Initiatives in Neurosurgery Research and Publications Between High-Income and Low/Middle-Income Countries: A Bibliometric Analysis

Alice Jacqueline Jelmoni,Delia Cannizzaro,Daniel Uralov,Francesca Totis,Adrian Safa,Ismail Zaed,Asra Al Fauzi,Tariq Khan,Ignatius N. Esene,Angelos Kolias,Claire Karekezi,Peter Hutchinson,Franco Servadei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000002935

IF: 5.315

2024-04-09

Neurosurgery

Abstract:Despite the globalization of health information, collaborations between high-income countries (HICs) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs), while present, could still increase. This study builds on previous research highlighting LMIC underrepresentation in neurosurgery literature. We conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis using the Scopus database to investigate collaborative neurosurgical research between HIC institutions and those in low-income country (LIC)/LMICs. Articles published between 2018 and 2020 were examined. Articles were categorized into 3 groups: guidelines, conferences, and consensus statements; articles related to training and collaborations; and other articles. We categorized articles and authors by country, role, and specific subtopic. We included 238 reports from 34 neurosurgical journals for analysis. Geographic distribution indicated that India led LIC/LMIC contributions (25.21%). Among HICs, the United States had the highest contribution (47.76%). In collaborative studies, Uganda, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Nigeria made significant contributions. LICs and LMICs accounted for 446 authors, while HICs contributed with 592. India has presented the highest number of authors in significant positions. In HICs, significant positions are recognized in USA articles. When scoring authors' position in collaborative papers, still HICs had a clear prevalence. The highest number of collaborations between HICs and LICs/LMICs has been observed in articles related to training and collaborations. Kenya matched India's contributions in training and collaborations. Global guidelines and consensus papers can enhance patient care, but LMICs' involvement remains limited. Further attention to training and collaboration initiatives is needed. This study emphasizes the importance of promoting collaboration and training between countries with varying resources to advance neurosurgical care globally.

surgery,clinical neurology
An Emerging Trend of Equal Authorship Credit in Major Public Health Journals

Shui-Ying Lei,Yan-Ping Dong,Wei-Fang Zhu,Lan-Juan Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2771-7

2016-01-01

SpringerPlus

Abstract:Background This study aimed to identify the longitudinal trends and characteristics of the practice of explicitly giving equal credit to multiple authors of publications in public health journals. Manual searches were conducted to identify original research articles, published in five public health journals with the highest IFs according to the “2012 JCR Science Edition” between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2013, which awarded equal credit to multiple authors ( Epidemiologic Reviews , Environmental Health Perspectives , the International Journal of Epidemiology , Epidemiology , and the Annual Review of Public Health ). The Instructions to Authors in the five journals were also examined with regard to information about giving equal credit to multiple authors. Findings Statistically significant differences were noted in the annual prevalence in Environmental Health Perspectives , International Journal of Epidemiology , and Epidemiology ( r = 0.753, P = 0.012; r = 0.894, P = 0.000; r = 0.522, P = 0.122, respectively). The first two authors listed in the by-line received equal credit in the majority of articles, but this practice was also extended to authors in nearly every position on the by-line in some publications. The authors given equal credit in articles appearing in Environmental Health Perspectives , International Journal of Epidemiology , and Epidemiology were primarily from European and North American countries. Finally, none of the journals provided specific guidance regarding this practice in their Instructions to Authors. Conclusions An emerging trend of giving equal credit to multiple authors is observed in the public health journals. This practice should be better addressed in the guidance provided by journals to authors.
Emergency Care in India: A Retrospective Cross-sectional Analysis of Health Management and Information System and Global Burden of Disease

Gaurav Urs,Siddhesh Zadey,Padmavathy Krishna Kumar,Tejali Gangane,Pushkar Nimkar,Catherine Staton,Joao Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.16.24312130

2024-08-20

Abstract:Background: To understand the utilization and burden of emergency medical conditions (EMCs), we assessed EM Department (EMD) data from the Health Management and Information System (HMIS) of India and EMC from the Global Burden of Diseases (GBD). Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of HMIS and GBD data for 2019. We extracted EMD registrations, admissions, and deaths from HMIS and incidence, deaths, and DALYs from GBD for 31 EMCs at the national and state levels. We analyzed HMIS and GBD data for proportions and rates of registrations, deaths, and incident cases relative to population counts and hospital admission numbers. Results: In 2019, 119,103,358 patients (8,935.66 per 100,000 people) were registered at EMDs. The national EMD registration rate was 6,744.21 per 100,000 hospital admissions and the EMD death rate was 43,939.49 per 100,000 inpatient deaths. Only 12.14% of all HMIS registrations had cause-specific data. GBD estimated 2,047,175,737 EMC incident cases nationally, accounting for 27.22% of all-cause incidence, 51.71% of all-cause mortality, and 42.30% of all-cause DALYs. Trauma-related registrations were 9.27% in HMIS while injuries in GBD accounted for 7% of EMCs. Overall, HMIS EMD registrations were lower than GBD EMC incidence numbers, with regional variations. Conclusions: The study reveals gaps in the EMD utilization as per HMIS data compared to the EMC burden estimates from GBD. Improved data integration and reporting can address regional disparities.

Advanced glycosylation end products in tissue and the biochemical basis of diabetic complications.

Bibliometric analysis of authorship patterns in publications from a research group at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 2016–2020

How global is global health research? A large-scale analysis of trends in authorship

Equity and Representation in Cardiology Research: A Comprehensive Analysis of Authorship from Low and Low-Middle income countries in Cardiology Journals

Geographic, Subject, and Authorship Trends among LMIC-based Scientific Publications in High-impact Global Health and General Medicine Journals: A 30-Month Bibliometric Analysis

Evaluation of Low- and Middle-Income Country Authorship in the Global Orthopaedic Literature

Geographic Representation of Authorship in Ophthalmic Research from Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Authorship inequalities in global health research: the IeDEA Southern Africa collaboration

Faster, higher, stronger – together? A bibliometric analysis of author distribution in top medical education journals

Does diversity beget diversity? A scientometric analysis of over 150,000 studies and 49,000 authors published in high-impact medical journals between 2007 and 2022

Gender differences in publication in emergency medicine journals

Disparities in Global Authorship and Data Source in the Pediatric Blood and Cancer Journal 2011–2021: Realities and Strategies for Improvement

Time to Reimagine Equity in Knowledge Generation

Global emergency medicine research priorities: a mapping review

Exploring the Evolution of Research Connectivity and Funding in Global Neurosurgical Publications

Scientific production in sexual and reproductive health and rights research according to gender and affiliation: An analysis of publications from 1972 to 2021

More than just a hobby: building an academic career in global emergency medicine

A review of authorship in herpes simplex virus type-2 (HSV-2) research conducted in low-income and middle-income countries between 2000 and 2020

Collaborative Initiatives in Neurosurgery Research and Publications Between High-Income and Low/Middle-Income Countries: A Bibliometric Analysis

An Emerging Trend of Equal Authorship Credit in Major Public Health Journals

Emergency Care in India: A Retrospective Cross-sectional Analysis of Health Management and Information System and Global Burden of Disease