Authorship trends in The Lancet Global Health: only the tip of the iceberg?
Authors: Juliane Chaccour
Journal: The Lancet Global Health (2018)

Authorship in collaborative research can be considered a proxy for research leadership, and deserves attention as an indicator for the success of capacity-building schemes. Adithi Iyer1Iyer AR Authorship trends in The Lancet Global Health.Lancet Glob Health. 2018; 6: e142Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar highlights an important yet understudied component of global health collaborations—the distribution of authorship. I would like to commend her for raising the topic for discussion. However, caution is advised when interpreting the data. The brief analysis presented by the author of the Correspondence does not take into account three key points. First, awareness of authorship criteria proposed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors tends to be low in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Researchers from LMICs commonly tolerate accepting guest authors on publications, despite not fulfilling clear authorship criteria.2Rohwer A Young T Wager E Garner P Authorship, plagiarism and conflict of interest: views and practices from low/middle-income country health researchers.BMJ Open. 2017; 7: e018467Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar The second point that is not taken into account is order of authorship. Important authorship positions shared by authors from LMICs on publications in The Lancet Global Health could be distributed more unevenly than suggested by Iyer.1Iyer AR Authorship trends in The Lancet Global Health.Lancet Glob Health. 2018; 6: e142Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar Even though the number of authors might be relatively balanced, the first authors of most publications are likely not to be authors from LMICs, and token authorship in the middle authorship positions is frequent.3Kelaher M Ng L Knight K Rahadi A Equity in global health research in the new millennium: trends in first-authorship for randomized controlled trials among low- and middle-income country researchers 1990–2013.Int J Epidemiol. 2017; 45: 2174-2183Crossref Scopus (56) Google Scholar, 4Adedokun BO Olopade CO Olopade OI Building local capacity for genomics research in Africa: recommendations from analysis of publications in sub-Saharan Africa from 2004 to 2013.Glob Health Action. 2016; 9: 31026Crossref PubMed Scopus (36) Google Scholar, 5Chu KM Jayaraman S Kyamanywa P Ntakiyiruta G Building research capacity in Africa: equity and global health collaborations.PLoS Med. 2014; 11: 1-4Crossref Scopus (191) Google Scholar Third, Iyer1Iyer AR Authorship trends in The Lancet Global Health.Lancet Glob Health. 2018; 6: e142Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar did not consider double affiliations. From my experience, many researchers from high-income countries with a track record in global health use multiple affiliations, and prefer their LMIC affiliation when applicable for fee waivers, as is the case for The Lancet Global Health. Considering these factors, the real percentage of contributing authors from LMICs on publications in The Lancet Global Health is likely to fall short of the one presented. Capacity-building initiatives in global health collaborations have focused mostly on transferring technical skills. Yet, building true research capacity is a long-term process, and needs to include skills from study design to publication skills. Global health partnerships often linger in a comfortable state of imbalance; the research management work is frequently shouldered by non-LMIC partners who are better equipped for this purpose than LMIC partners. As a consequence, these authors from high-income countries go on to enjoy most of the rewards of the research—ie, first and last authorship. Authors from LMICs, particularly those whose first language is not English, need to make an additional effort to be on a par with their collaborators. We must ask ourselves if both sides actively create the conditions for establishing equitable partnerships in global health. I declare no competing interests. Authorship trends in The Lancet Global HealthOne of The Lancet Global Health's stated purposes is to represent "disadvantaged populations" in health-related scenarios around the world. To analyse to what extent the journal succeeds in its aim, I studied all research articles spanning the existence of the journal (June, 2013–July, 2017). I calculated what proportion of articles in the journal covered a research project in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and north Africa, east Asia, south Asia, southeast Asia and Oceania, Europe, and the Americas, and what proportion of the contributing authors of an article was affiliated with or came from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Full-Text PDF Open AccessGendered geography: an analysis of authors in The Lancet Global HealthAcademic career advancement is largely driven by peer-reviewed research, with the number of publications and author rank representing important measures of distinction and productivity.1 There is, however, a persistent gender gap in academic publishing; although authorship by women has risen substantially since the 1960s and the raw publication count is becoming increasingly equal between women and men, men still dominate the coveted first and last author positions, along with single authored papers,2 and women are still in the minority as authors. Full-Text PDF Open Access