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-

Identifying authorial roles in research: A Kano model-based bibliometric analysis for the Journal of Medicine (Baltimore) 2023

Investigating Academic Graph‐Based Factors Behind Funding Success in National Institutes of Health

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

Time to Reimagine Equity in Knowledge Generation

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

Using Bibliometric Data to Define and Understand Publishing Network Equity in Anesthesiology

Researchers' Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams

A Survey-Weighted Analytic Hierarchy Process to Quantify Authorship

Patterns of authors contribution in scientific manuscripts

An integrated approach to evaluate faculty members' research performance

Building consensus on author selection practices for industry-sponsored research: recommendations from an expert task force of medical publication professionals

A bibliometric analysis of academic publication and NIH funding.

Modernizing authorship criteria and transparency practices to facilitate open and equitable team science

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

Analyzing collaboration and impact: A bibliometric review of four highly published authors' research profiles on collaborative maps

An updated and expanded characterization of the biological sciences academic job market

Quantity over quality of publications: Are we using the right metrics to judge author's productivity and impact in biomedical research?

A Platform (Authorships.org) for the Objective Qualification and Order of Academic Authorship in Medical and Science Journals: Development and Evaluation Study Using the Design Science Research Methodology

Diversity in health professional education scholarship: a document analysis of international author representation in leading journals

Academic medicine’s glass ceiling: Author’s gender in top three medical research journals impacts probability of future publication success

Gender disparity in critical care publications: a novel Female First Author Index