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-

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

A Cross‐sectional Descriptive Analysis of Authorship Trends in China‐based Dermatology Literature in International Journals, 2000–2010

Statistical Analysis of Articles Published and Authors of Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery from 2002 to 2012

Twenty-Five Years of Progress-Lessons Learned From JMIR Publications to Address Gender Parity in Digital Health Authorships: Bibliometric Analysis

Perceptions of author order versus contribution among researchers with different professional ranks and the potential of harmonic counts for encouraging ethical co-authorship practices

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

Gender disparity between authors in leading medical journals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional review

Persistent ethnic disparities in authorship within top European and North American medical journals: a serial cross-sectional analysis

Publishing priorities in global health: A framework and empirical analysis

Analysis of justification for and gender bias in author order among those contributing equally

Time to Reimagine Equity in Knowledge Generation

Scientific publications in public, environmental and occupational health journals by authors from China, Japan and Korea in East Asia: A 10-year literature survey from 2003 to 2012

A 20-year analysis of gender trends in oncology authorship in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews

The Most-Cited Authors Who Published Papers in JMIR mHealth and uHealth Using the Authorship-Weighted Scheme: Bibliometric Analysis

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

Evaluation of Author Instructions for Inclusive Language Guidance in Highly Cited English Language Medical Journals

Analysis of justification for author order and gender bias in author order among those contributing equally

Trends in Female Authorship in Major Journals of 3 Oncology Disciplines, 2002-2018

Association of Double-Blind Reviews With Increases in Women as First Authors: An Initial Report From the Journal of Cardiac Failure

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

A Review of Authorship Inflation and Multicenter Collaboration Trends in Orthopedic, Medical, and Surgical Journals Over the Last 60 Years