Chersich Matthew F, Blaauw Duane, Dumbaugh Mari, Penn-Kekana Loveday, Dhana Ashar, Thwala Siphiwe, Bijlmakers Leon, Vargas Emily, Kern Elinor, Becerra-Posada Francisco, Kavanagh Josephine, Mannava Priya, Mlotshwa Langelihle, Becerril-Montekio Victor, Footman Katharine, Rees Helen
Wits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Centre for Health Policy/MRC Health Policy Research Group, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Global Health. 2016 Jun 23;12(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s12992-016-0172-x.
Researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are under-represented in scientific literature. Mapping of authorship of articles can provide an assessment of data ownership and research capacity in LMICs over time and identify variations between different settings.
Systematic mapping of maternal health interventional research in LMICs from 2000 to 2012, comparing country of study and of affiliation of first authors. Studies on health systems or promotion; community-based activities; and haemorrhage, hypertension, HIV/STIs and malaria were included. Following review of 35,078 titles and abstracts, 2292 full-text publications were included. Data ownership was measured by the proportion of articles with an LMIC lead author (author affiliated with an LMIC institution).
The total number of papers led by an LMIC author rose from 45.0/year in 2000-2003 to 98.0/year in 2004-2007, but increased only slightly thereafter to 113.1/year in 2008-2012. In the same periods, the proportion of papers led by a local author was 58.4 %, 60.8 % and 60.1 %, respectively. Data ownership varies markedly between countries. A quarter of countries led more than 75 % of their research; while in 10 countries, under 25 % of publications had a local first author. Researchers at LMIC institutions led 56.6 % (1297) of all papers, but only 26.8 % of systematic reviews (65/243), 29.9 % of modelling studies (44/147), and 33.2 % of articles in journals with an Impact Factor ≥5 (61/184). Sub-Saharan Africa authors led 54.2 % (538/993) of studies in the region, while 73.4 % did in Latin America and the Caribbean (223/304). Authors affiliated with United States (561) and United Kingdom (207) institutions together account for a third of publications. Around two thirds of USAID and European Union funded studies had high-income country leads, twice as many as that of Wellcome Trust and Rockefeller Foundation.
There are marked gaps in data ownership and these have not diminished over time. Increased locally-led publications, however, does suggest a growing capacity in LMIC institutions to analyse and articulate research findings. Differences in author attribution between funders might signal important variations in funders' expectations of authorship and discrepancies in how funders understand collaboration. More stringent authorship oversight and reconsideration of authorship guidelines could facilitate growth in LMIC leadership. Left unaddressed, deficiencies in research ownership will continue to hinder alignment between the research undertaken and knowledge needs of LMICs.
中低收入国家（LMICs）的研究人员在科学文献中的代表性不足。文章作者归属情况的梳理能够评估中低收入国家的数据所有权和研究能力随时间的变化，并识别不同环境之间的差异。
对2000年至2012年中低收入国家的孕产妇健康干预研究进行系统梳理，比较研究国家和第一作者的所属机构。纳入关于卫生系统或促进、社区活动以及出血、高血压、艾滋病毒/性传播感染和疟疾的研究。在对35078篇标题和摘要进行审查后，纳入了2292篇全文出版物。数据所有权通过以中低收入国家为第一作者（隶属于中低收入国家机构的作者）的文章比例来衡量。
由中低收入国家作者主导的论文总数从2000 - 2003年的每年45.0篇增至2004 - 2007年的每年98.0篇，但此后仅略有增加，在2008 - 2012年为每年113.1篇。在同一时期，由当地作者主导的论文比例分别为58.4%、60.8%和60.1%。不同国家的数据所有权差异显著。四分之一的国家主导了其超过75%的研究；而在10个国家，不到25%的出版物有当地第一作者。中低收入国家机构的研究人员主导了所有论文的56.6%（1297篇），但在系统评价中仅占26.8%（65/243），在建模研究中占29.9%（44/147），在影响因子≥5的期刊文章中占33.2%（61/184）。撒哈拉以南非洲的作者主导了该地区54.2%（538/993）的研究，而在拉丁美洲和加勒比地区这一比例为73.4%（223/304）。隶属于美国（561篇）和英国（207篇）机构的作者共同占出版物的三分之一。美国国际开发署和欧盟资助的研究中约三分之二由高收入国家主导，是惠康信托基金会和洛克菲勒基金会的两倍。
数据所有权存在显著差距，且这些差距并未随时间缩小。然而，当地主导的出版物增加确实表明中低收入国家机构分析和阐述研究结果的能力在不断增强。资助者之间作者归属的差异可能表明资助者对作者身份的期望存在重要差异，以及资助者对合作的理解存在差异。更严格的作者身份监督和对作者指南的重新考虑可能有助于中低收入国家领导力的提升。如果不加以解决，研究所有权的缺陷将继续阻碍所开展的研究与中低收入国家的知识需求之间的契合。
