Scholarlink

Background <p>Despite calls for equitable global eye-health research partnerships, there are limited data on authorship trends in research from Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Our aims were to determine the magnitude, trends, associated factors, and gender disparities related to inequitable authorship in eye-health research conducted in SSA.</p> Methods <p>This was a cross-sectional analysis of SSA eye-health publications between 2003 and 2022. A systematic literature search was conducted. Data were manually extracted from the 1777 publications that met eligibility screening criteria. Namsor V.2 was used to classify author gender. Outcomes included no locally-affiliated authors and SSA-affiliated female authors.</p> Results <p>Overall, 1777 publications were included. The percentage of publications with no locally-affiliated authors was 6% overall, 33% in the first author position, and 45% in the last author position. There were no significant trends in the exclusion of locally-affiliated authors between 2003 and 2022 (no authors: <i>p</i> = 0.899; no first authors: <i>p</i> = 0.515; no last authors: <i>p</i> = 0.574). Factors with a higher odds of no locally-affiliated authors at all or in prominent positions included high-income-country-affiliated co-authors, low-income study countries, randomised trials, high-impact research, US/UK journal publishers and funders, and trachoma publications. SSA-affiliated female authors were underrepresented in prominent authorship positions (first authors: <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001; last authors: <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and had lower odds of representation with US/UK journal publishers, low-income study countries, and randomised trials.</p> Conclusion <p>Inequitable authorship practices persist in eye-health research in SSA. Greater commitment towards partnership equity by ophthalmic researchers, journals, and funding organisations is needed.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Locally-affiliated authorship in global eye health research conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa between 2003 and 2022

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月27日

查看全文
  • Scott K. Herrod,
  • Edinam Y. Hutton-Mensah,
  • Connor J. Alder,
  • David S. Friedman,
  • Yan Zhao,
  • Dupe Ademola-Popoola,
  • Vera A. Essuman,
  • Chris A. Rees,
  • Khumbo Kalua,
  • Deborah Goss,
  • Joshua R. Ehrlich,
  • Sadik Taju Sherief

摘要

Background

Despite calls for equitable global eye-health research partnerships, there are limited data on authorship trends in research from Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Our aims were to determine the magnitude, trends, associated factors, and gender disparities related to inequitable authorship in eye-health research conducted in SSA.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional analysis of SSA eye-health publications between 2003 and 2022. A systematic literature search was conducted. Data were manually extracted from the 1777 publications that met eligibility screening criteria. Namsor V.2 was used to classify author gender. Outcomes included no locally-affiliated authors and SSA-affiliated female authors.

Results

Overall, 1777 publications were included. The percentage of publications with no locally-affiliated authors was 6% overall, 33% in the first author position, and 45% in the last author position. There were no significant trends in the exclusion of locally-affiliated authors between 2003 and 2022 (no authors: p = 0.899; no first authors: p = 0.515; no last authors: p = 0.574). Factors with a higher odds of no locally-affiliated authors at all or in prominent positions included high-income-country-affiliated co-authors, low-income study countries, randomised trials, high-impact research, US/UK journal publishers and funders, and trachoma publications. SSA-affiliated female authors were underrepresented in prominent authorship positions (first authors: p < 0.001; last authors: p < 0.001) and had lower odds of representation with US/UK journal publishers, low-income study countries, and randomised trials.

Conclusion

Inequitable authorship practices persist in eye-health research in SSA. Greater commitment towards partnership equity by ophthalmic researchers, journals, and funding organisations is needed.