ArticlePloS one2016
Good and Bad Research Collaborations: Researchers' Views on Science and Ethics in Global Health Research.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
80 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strengthening translational medical research in Ireland: an interdisciplinary framework for clinician-scientist collaboration.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Strengthening an Ethical Framework and Research Practice to Better Link Global Health Research to Health Equity : A Case Study of the SPOT-Impact Consortium.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Rethinking ethical reflexivity and oversight in health research through an ecosystem approach: A workshop report.Research ethics · 2026Article
- Understanding global health research collaborations: an Indigenous realist evaluation of the African Research Initiative for Scientific Excellence programme.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- A scoping review of equity toolkits for international academic partnerships.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- "Community Over Commercialization": Help Us Keep GHSP Open.Global health, science and practice · 2025Article
- Barriers and Opportunities for Cancer Clinical Trials in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Two-stage cluster sampling to assess SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence without pre-enumeration: An example from Madagascar.PloS one · 2025Observational
- Mapping the cancer research landscape across Zambia: evidence to support national cancer control planning.Ecancermedicalscience · 2025Review
- Promoting More Equitable Global Health Research, Education, and Community Partnerships: The Efforts of One US‑Based Academic Institution.Annals of global health · 2025Article
- Ethical and epistemic costs of a lack of geographical and cultural diversity in developmental science.Developmental psychology · 2025Article
- Stewardship and social justice: implications of using the precautionary principle to justify burdensome antimicrobial stewardship measures.Monash bioethics review · 2024Article
- Strengthening policy engagement when scaling up interventions targeting non-communicable diseases: insights from a qualitative study across 20 countries.Health policy and planning · 2024Article
- Data as scientific currency: Challenges experienced by researchers with sharing health data in sub-Saharan Africa.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Advancing collaborative research for health: why does collaboration matter?BMJ global health · 2024Review
- Ten simple rules for successful and sustainable African research collaborations.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Community engagement and the centrality of 'working relationships' in health research.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Ending "domestic helicopter research".Cell · 2024Article
- Aligning the principles and practice of research integrity and research fairness in global health: a mixed-methods study.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Power imbalances and equity in the day-to-day functioning of a north plus multi-south higher education institutions partnership: a case study.International journal for equity in health · 2024Article
20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There has been a dramatic rise in the scale and scope of collaborative global health research. A number of structural and scientific factors explain this growth and there has been much discussion of these in the literature. Little, if any, attention has been paid, however, to the factors identified by scientists and other research actors as important to successful research collaboration. This is surprising given that their decisions are likely to play a key role in the sustainability and effectiveness of global health research initiatives. In this paper, we report on qualitative research with leading scientists involved in major international research collaborations about their views on good and bad collaborations and the factors that inform their decision-making about joining and participating actively in research networks. We identify and discuss eight factors that researchers see as essential in judging the merits of active participation in global health research collaborations: opportunities for active involvement in cutting-edge, interesting science; effective leadership; competence of potential partners in and commitment to good scientific practice; capacity building; respect for the needs, interests and agendas of partners; opportunities for discussion and disagreement; trust and confidence; and, justice and fairness in collaboration. Our findings suggest that the sustainability and effectiveness of global health research collaborations has an important ethical or moral dimension for the research actors involved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.