North–South inequities in research collaboration in humanitarian and conflict contexts

Regional academics are typically relegated to the roles of securing institutional review board approvals and local permissions, accessing survey populations, data collection, and translation, and are marginalised from contributing to the interpretation of findings, write-up, and academic authorship (panel).1,2 Although similar experiences have been echoed in global health research more generally,3,4 the intensification of humanitarian crises, the increase in research funding, and the overwhelming need to act swiftly and produce data that can support humanitarian efforts have accentuated existing power inequities. Health research in low-income and middle-income countries affected by armed conflict is often fragmented, underdeveloped, or driven by research agendas from the global North.5 The knowledge produced has not provided an adequate understanding of the specific local context.6 The people studied—refugees and vulnerable host communities in the Middle East—have become over-researched populations, expected to volunteer time and information, with few concrete incentives and often minimal impact on their social, economic, and health realities.7–9 We propose three guiding principles for developing more equitable and long-term research partnerships. Given barriers with language and scientific writing skills, authorship guidelines, such as those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, might need to be more flexibly applied in conflict-related research.16 Global South academic, research, and multilateral institutions need to empower researchers in contractual negotiation and in data stewardship, sharing, and protection.