ArticlePloS one2024
Challenges of biomedical research collaboration in India: Perceptions of Indian and international researchers.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Medicine Meets Science: The Imperative of Scientific Research and Publishing for Physician-Scientists.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biomedical research collaborations are to be contextualized in the larger global health agenda which also opens up new information pathways, expands research networks, and brings additional resources. A qualitative inquiry was employed to understand the perceived benefits and challenges of research collaborations by biomedical scientists from India (Global South [GS] country) and the Global North (GN). In-depth interviews were conducted with 47 biomedical scientists from India and 06 from the GN. The data was analyzed using the grounded theory approach. Complementarity of skills and resources, access to funds, improved quality of work, an opportunity to conduct multi-centric studies, development of collaborative networks, better and larger number of publications, mutual learning, opportunity to work with credible researchers, address common interests, leverage interpersonal and trusted relationships and larger societal good were some of the critical factors for eagerness of participants in joint scientific endeavors. However, the challenging aspects of dissent and disagreements were the power imbalance between the collaborators, the development of a trust deficit, and local administrative issues. The challenges reported in the current publication, also echoed in several previous publications can be surmounted and negotiated amicably when the rules of the game, law of the land, sharing of the credits, and interest of the collaborating parties are addressed and agreed up in a fair and just manner before the start of the collaboration. Overall biomedical partnerships are complex collaborations with its challenges, the processes are dynamic and outcomes are emergent. This requires constant and proactive evolution of the preparation, implementation and sustainability of the collaborative efforts be it national or international.
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.