Global health in all its facets – from funding, implementation, education and research – is facing increasing calls to face its colonial history [1-3]. Inequitable practices in global health research have been challenged and brought to light. The field continues to be dominated by researchers from institutions in high-income countries (HIC) to the exclusion of researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) or communities where the research is conducted. Disparities in first/senior (last) authorship positions have been used to highlight these power imbalances [4-6]. For example, in their systematic review of authorship in global health research in Africa, Hedt-Gautheir et al. found that only about half of research output had a first author from the country of the paper’s focus [4].

In the ‘publish or perish’ paradigm of academic research, authorship presents opportunities for career progression affecting tenure, hiring, award and grant decisions [7]. Academic journals and journal editors hold significant power in the research process as they ultimately make research publication decisions. Given the power they hold in the research process, journals and journal editors have a responsibility to ensure that the research they choose to publish and by extension research of value, does not perpetuate unjust and exploitative research practices. Just like most medical journals require institutional review boards for research involving human subjects [8], journals also ought to develop and adopt guidelines and standards that prevent unethical research practices like ‘parachute or helicopter’ research in LMICs. In the current issue of Anaesthesia, Morton et al. present a consensus statement on measures to promote equitable authorship in the publication of research from international partnerships in global health [9].

The authors used a robust process, including three workshops and four narrative reviews, followed by an external review by experts in global health and journal editors who were independent of the core writing team. The impetus for a consensus statement was the exclusionary practice of doing research in a host country and publishing the results without adequate recognition of local researchers – a practice that has now come to be termed as ‘parachute (or helicopter)’ research.

全球健康的各个方面——从资金、实施、教育和研究——正面临越来越多的呼吁，以面对其殖民历史 [ 1-3 ]。全球卫生研究中的不公平做法受到挑战并被曝光。该领域继续由来自高收入国家 (HIC) 机构的研究人员主导，但不包括中低收入国家 (LMIC) 或进行研究的社区的研究人员。第一/高级（最后）作者职位的差异已被用来突出这些权力不平衡 [ 4-6]。例如，Hedt-Gautheir 等人在他们对非洲全球卫生研究作者身份的系统评价中。发现只有大约一半的研究成果的第一作者来自论文关注的国家[ 4 ]。

在学术研究的“出版或灭亡”范式中，作者身份为职业发展提供了机会，影响了任期、聘用、奖励和拨款决定 [ 7 ]。学术期刊和期刊编辑在研究过程中拥有重要的权力，因为他们最终做出研究发表决定。鉴于他们在研究过程中拥有的权力，期刊和期刊编辑有责任确保他们选择发表的研究以及通过扩展价值研究不会使不公正和剥削性的研究实践永久化。就像大多数医学期刊需要机构审查委员会来进行涉及人类受试者的研究 [ 8]，期刊还应该制定和采用指导方针和标准，以防止不道德的研究行为，如在 LMIC 中进行“降落伞或直升机”研究。在最新一期的Anesthesia中，Morton 等人。就在全球卫生国际合作伙伴关系的研究发表中促进作者平等的措施提出共识声明 [ 9 ]。

作者使用了一个稳健的流程，包括三个研讨会和四个叙述性评论，然后由独立于核心写作团队的全球健康专家和期刊编辑进行外部评论。达成共识声明的动力是在东道国进行研究并在没有当地研究人员充分认可的情况下发表结果的排他性做法——这种做法现在被称为“降落伞（或直升机）”研究。