Manali Sarkar1, Sayali Sandeep Kulkarni2, Maria Bozika3, Prateek4, Sajjad A. Khan5, Abdulbasit O. Muili6, Mihnea-Alexandru Găman7, Francisco J. Bonilla-Escobar8
doi: https://doi.org/10.5195/ijms.2026.5348
Volume 14, Number 2: 57-62
Research conducted in a community does not, by itself, give that community a voice in what is studied or how the findings are used. Controversies over the control of human biospecimens1 and the conduct of clinical trials in low-income settings2 illustrate persistent questions about consent, ownership, and benefit sharing. Resources for health research are also unevenly distributed, with disparities in funding and research capacity between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).3,4 These inequalities concern authority as well as money: whose questions receive attention, whose contributions are recognized, and whose knowledge shapes interpretation and practice.5,6
In this editorial, decolonizing global health research means confronting the colonial histories that shaped the field and examining and redistributing control over funding, research questions, data, and decisions about what counts as legitimate knowledge. Colonial and tropical medicine shaped the development of global health; the history of malaria control provides one example of their lasting influence.7 Indigenous scholarship cautions that decolonization entails commitments to sovereignty and land restitution that cannot be reduced to institutional inclusion.8 Other scholars argue that undoing supremacy in global health requires more than decolonization.9 Our focus here is on research governance. We therefore ask one question of every proposed action: does it redistribute decision-making authority, budget control, or control over data, or does it merely widen participation? Participation without such a transfer sits on the lower rungs of Arnstein’s ladder.10
Medical students have a place in this effort. Student-led movements have contributed to calls for decolonizing global health, although their capacity to change institutional structures remains limited.11 Through research projects, electives, student organizations, and scholarly publishing, students encounter decisions about partnership, credit, and accountability during their training. This editorial proposes practical ways for students based in either HICs or LMICs to support locally defined priorities, negotiate transparent research partnerships, and organize collectively for institutional change. Their participation must be accompanied by commitments from faculty, universities, journals, and funders to share authority and provide the resources needed to sustain equitable practice.
The studies summarized in Table 1 describe inequities across several fields and settings. Their findings illustrate recurring problems, although their scope and generalizability differ. Institutional incentives and constraints can help sustain these patterns.
Students based in HICs and LMICs can advocate for the following changes through their research, education, and collective organizing. Each action depends on a corresponding institutional commitment. Table 3 links these actions to institutional responsibilities and proposed measures of progress.
Curricula offer a practical starting point for student advocacy. Students can review reading lists, teaching materials, and clinical tools for colonial bias and ask who sets the curriculum, selects speakers, and controls the resources available for teaching. A review should examine both representation and content, including skin tone in medical textbook imagery32 and the use of race in clinical algorithms.33 It should also ask whether descriptions of tropical or neglected diseases explain the structural conditions shaping their distribution. Students can invite researchers based in LMICs to speak and advocate for fair compensation. Student-run journal clubs can discuss locally prioritized health problems and scholarship from the regions concerned. Students in LMICs can examine their own curricula, including their reliance on textbooks, guidelines, and cases developed elsewhere, and build seminar series around local and regional scholarship. Because challenging a curriculum can put students at odds with the faculty who teach and assess them, such reviews are best presented collectively and supported by faculty commitments to share curricular authority and fund speaker honoraria.
Examples of Inequity in Global Health Research and Training
| Domain | Examples documented in the cited literature | References |
|---|---|---|
| Authorship and credit | Studies in neurosurgery, infectious diseases, and oncology report unequal representation across author roles, including limited representation of researchers based in study countries or LMICs in leadership positions. | 12-14 |
| Funding | Limited funding and institutional support can constrain research projects and career development in LMICs. Calls for reform also address how funders allocate resources and authority. | 15-18 |
| Publication costs | APCs and other publication charges can restrict publishing options for researchers with limited funds. Country-based waivers and discounts may exclude researchers with financial need in middle-income countries. | 16,17/19-21 |
| Epistemic injustice | Research can undervalue local knowledge and lived experience. An analysis of WHO drug-resistant tuberculosis guidelines found that experts based in high-burden and lower-income countries were underrepresented in guideline groups and related publications. | 6,22-24 |
| Classification and terminology | Income-based labels and broad country groupings can conceal differences within and between countries and reinforce hierarchies in how people and places are described. | 25 |
| Education | Studies of international electives describe supervision costs, resource pressures, and unclear clinical responsibilities for hosts. Historical analysis also identifies hierarchical portrayals of doctors migrating from India and Pakistan to the United Kingdom. | 26-29 |
| Mobility | Visa requirements, processing delays, and costs can restrict access to international conferences and training. Late invitations and uncertainty about funding can leave applicants insufficient time to secure visas. | 30,31 |
Legend: APCs, article processing charges; LMICs, low- and middle-income countries; WHO, World Health Organization. These examples illustrate findings from specific settings and should not be interpreted as universal patterns or proof of causation.
Students are increasingly expected to complete research projects, often in partnership with institutions in other countries. Whether these projects model equitable partnership depends largely on decisions made before data collection begins (Table 2). Student research groups should apply principles of mutual benefit, equity, accountability, humility, sustainability, and engagement with local and global stakeholders.34 In practice, this means being explicit about who holds decision-making authority, who controls the budget, and who sets the conditions for data reuse. Students should distinguish local academic approval from community participation. A local collaborator's endorsement does not establish that patients or communities helped define a question. Teams should agree on mechanisms through which affected communities can question the project, negotiate benefits, and participate in decisions about whether it proceeds.
A Checklist for Student Research Partnerships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Authorship expectations should be discussed early among all relevant collaborators and recorded as provisional arrangements to be revisited as contributions evolve. The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)35,36 documents contributions but does not determine eligibility for authorship. It can be paired with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria and an agreed process for reviewing contributions and resolving disagreements.37 Contributors who meet the first ICMJE criterion should have the opportunity to participate in drafting or critical review and final approval; denying them that opportunity must not become a means of excluding them from authorship.37 Local collaborators should have opportunities to contribute to design, analysis, interpretation, and writing, with appropriate credit, to prevent authorship parasitism and token authorship.38,39 Fair payment, acknowledgment, and authorship recognize different contributions and should be considered separately.
Students should document the ethics approvals, exemptions, or reliance arrangements required by the relevant institutions and jurisdictions. They should also plan how findings will be returned to participants and communities and consider local journals, policy briefs, and presentations in the host setting alongside international publications. Students based in LMICs can propose projects through their own institutions, journals, research groups, and South-South networks. Because questioning supervisors or institutions can put students at risk, these conversations are best held collectively, with support from faculty allies and student organizations.
Learning in global health should flow in both directions. Reverse innovation40 expresses this idea, although empirical work suggests that the term can reinforce the directionality it seeks to challenge.41 A South-North patient safety partnership described how hospitals in Liberia, Uganda, and South Sudan offered lessons to Johns Hopkins Medicine through open visiting, bedside rounds, and family involvement in patient care.42 For electives and exchanges, priorities should be defined by the host, with visiting students' learning objectives compatible with those priorities. Hosts should decide what visiting students may do and should be compensated for supervision and other resource costs.26,43 Knowledge exchange should be bidirectional and grounded in humility.43,44 Students can share learning objectives before departure, work within their competence under local supervision,45,46 and agree with hosts on a useful contribution.45 Student organizations can support reciprocal placements for students based in LMICs. Students in LMICs can also propose South-South exchanges and help set the terms on which their institutions host visitors.
A Checklist for Student Research Partnerships
| Domain | Student action | Institutional commitment | Proposed measures of progress |
|---|---|---|---|
| Curriculum | Review reading lists, images, and clinical tools. Invite scholars based in LMICs and organize journal clubs around their work. | Give LMIC-based scholars formal roles in curriculum design and review. Fund speaker honoraria and publish the findings of an annual review informed by students. | Share of assigned readings authored by LMIC-based scholars; share of sessions led by them; proportion of honoraria paid within an agreed period; student feedback on teaching and assessment. |
| Research partnerships | Agree on authority over questions, budgets, and data before collection. Apply ICMJE criteria and CRediT, keep author order provisional, separate payment from credit, and document ethics arrangements. | Require a partnership agreement before a project starts. Give partners and community representatives agreed decision-making roles and fund the return of results. | Share of projects with agreements signed before data collection; budget controlled by local partners; contributions and authorship reviewed; results returned; independent partner feedback on whether their input changed decisions. |
| Electives, exchanges, and conferences | Share learning objectives, work within competence under local supervision, and agree on a useful contribution. Advocate for visa support, accessible formats, and fee assistance. | Let hosts set priorities and compensate supervision. Offer reciprocal placements, choose accessible venues, issue invitations early, and provide assistance based on need. | Documentation of host-defined priorities; share of hosts compensated; reciprocal placements per year; participation by LMIC-based delegates and speakers; outcomes of visa and fee-assistance requests. |
| Language, images, and categories | Use accurate disease and virus names. Obtain publication consent in a language the person understands. Explain categories and disaggregate where justified. | Publish guidance on language, images, consent, and classification. Incorporate it into editorial and ethics review and train reviewers. | Share of submissions and protocols assessed against the guidance; justification of categories in outputs; documentation of understandable consent; publication of guidance adoption and review dates. |
| Institutional and funder accountability | Audit institutional practice collectively and present findings and proposals to academic leaders. | Assign a responsible senior official and fund a written response by an agreed deadline. Provide an independent complaints process and protection from retaliation. Support multiyear funding and agreed exit terms. | Repeat and publish audits at agreed intervals; track proposals adopted or answered; report aggregate complaint outcomes while protecting confidentiality; disclose the share and duration of funding controlled by local partners. |
| Positionality and diaspora | Reflect on knowledge, relationships, assumptions, privileges, and accountability. Include varied perspectives and use diaspora networks to support local partners. | Recognize and fund diaspora contributions while preserving local partners' authority over priorities, budgets, and data. | Positionality statements explaining effects on the work; partner feedback on diaspora involvement; documentation of local partners' decision-making authority. |
Legend: CRediT, Contributor Roles Taxonomy; ICMJE, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors; LMICs, low- and middle-income countries. These are proposed process measures, not validated measures of equity. Partners should agree on targets, reporting responsibilities, and timelines locally and interpret counts alongside qualitative feedback.
Student and professional organizations should consider LMIC venues and other locations where visa requirements, costs, and processing times permit broad participation.47 For example, the International Health Economics Association moved its 2025 Congress from Calgary, Canada, to Bali, Indonesia, citing delays, costs, and uncertainty in Canadian visa processing.48 Organizing committees should issue invitations early and provide supporting documentation and institutional assistance where appropriate. Hybrid formats offer another way to participate. The International Journal of Medical Students' World Conference of Medical Student Research provides an example of a fully online international conference run by medical students and early-career researchers.49,50 Online formats can reduce travel and visa barriers, although language, connectivity, and time zones can still limit participation. Students in LMICs can also establish or join student-run journals, peer-review training programs, and regional meetings through South-South networks,51 helping set agendas and publication practices closer to where research is conducted.
Costs require separate attention because manuscript submission fees, article processing charges (APCs), abstract fees, and conference registration fees create different barriers. For compliant open access journals and publishing platforms, Plan S requires APC waivers for authors from low-income economies, discounts for authors from lower-middle-income economies, and waivers or discounts for other authors with demonstrable need.19 Country-based eligibility can nevertheless exclude researchers who lack funds in middle-income countries.20,21 Assistance should therefore reflect financial need as well as country income classification, consistent with the concerns about broad labels discussed here.25 Published descriptions of Wiley's automatic APC waiver program illustrate one form of country-based support,52 such programs should be complemented by transparent mechanisms for individual needs-based assistance.
Students should describe hosts as partners or collaborators and use language that emphasizes mutual learning. They should distinguish the virus SARS-CoV-2 from the disease COVID-19 and avoid stigmatizing geographic labels.53 In a Rwandan study, some local learners found visiting students' repeated descriptions of their institution as poorly resourced diminishing.43 Before publishing identifiable patient images or narratives, students should obtain explicit consent for publication in a language the person understands and follow applicable documentation requirements. Country and resource classifications should identify the specific dimension being measured rather than rely on labels that conceal variation.25 Ancestry, ethnicity, racialization, nationality, and residence are distinct constructs. The categories used should fit the research question, be explained, and be disaggregated where justified and feasible. Broad groupings such as people of color or Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) should not replace more specific categories without justification.25
Students can advocate collectively for institutional policies that support South-South51 and South-North54 partnerships. They can audit their institutions' progress, publish the findings, and submit proposals to academic leaders. Students in LMICs can press their universities and national medical associations to fund local research groups and develop partnership policies. Such proposals should address who holds decision-making authority and budget control, alongside participation. Audits and proposals can expose students to retaliation; they are best undertaken collectively and with institutional protections.
Calls for funders to share authority must also address dependence on external financing. In May 2025, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced restrictions on traditional foreign subawards, through which a prime recipient transfers funds to a partner abroad.55 A subsequent policy introduced a linked award structure for international components, effective for relevant application due dates on or after January 25, 2026.56 The change reorganized funding arrangements; it did not end NIH support for international research. Reporting during the 2025 funding disruptions described threats to South African tuberculosis and HIV research capacity.57 These events underscore the vulnerability of partnerships that depend on decisions made by external funders. Separate awards should be assessed by whether they give international partners meaningful authority over resources and scientific priorities. A fuller approach to shared power would include domestic and South-South financing, multiyear core funding, and contractual protections such as notice periods and agreed exit terms.
Institutional location can shape access to funding, networks, and recognition. Global health practitioners have described hierarchies that privilege institutions and expertise associated with the Global North.58 A student based in an HIC may therefore have forms of institutional access unavailable to some colleagues in a country with which that student has family or cultural ties. Shared ancestry does not erase these differences, but institutional privilege should not be assumed to be uniform. Language, migration history, relationships, and sustained involvement can vary substantially, so neither insider nor outsider status should be presumed. Positionality reflection is useful for everyone on a research team: what knowledge, relationships, assumptions, privileges, and accountability obligations does each person bring?59 Teams should draw on varied perspectives in design, analysis, and interpretation without treating an outsider's interpretation as inherently more rigorous than local knowledge.
Diaspora health workers can connect institutions and support opportunities for colleagues in countries of heritage.60 The Tropical Health and Education Trust's 2021 report, Experts in Our Midst, recommended a network to identify, document, and support diaspora-led relationships and explicitly included student groups among potential participants.60 Student organizations can adapt this approach while ensuring that diaspora involvement supports local partners' authority rather than substituting for it.
Student-led initiatives have limitations. A reading list with a few authors based in LMICs, a pledge without follow-up, or a student-led committee with a restricted budget may benefit an institution's reputation while leaving its practices intact. Expecting students to correct systems sustained by faculty, funders, and institutions places an unfair burden on them. Students remain subject to grading, recommendations, and funding decisions controlled by these actors. Collective organizing through student unions, professional associations, and global networks may help students share risk and negotiate change, but it does not remove their vulnerability. Student action therefore requires institutional support, protection from retaliation, and meaningful authority. It cannot substitute for systemic reform. The measures in Table 3 are proposed process indicators, not validated evidence that equity has been achieved; they should be interpreted alongside feedback from partners and communities.
Decolonizing global health research is ultimately a question of power. Medical students cannot transform its structures alone, but their training can shape how future investigators, funders, editors, and policymakers share authority and resources. The actions proposed here offer practical starting points for research governed with meaningful participation by the people and institutions affected. Their value depends on faculty, universities, journals, and funders providing the resources, protections, and decision-making authority that equitable practice requires. Accountability must extend to the communities and partners on whom global health research depends.
None.
The Authors have no funding, financial relationships or conflicts of interest to disclose.
1. Beskow LM. Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2016;17:395-417.
2. Weigmann K. The ethics of global clinical trials: In developing countries, participation in clinical trials is sometimes the only way to access medical treatment. What should be done to avoid exploitation of disadvantaged populations? EMBO Rep. 2015;16(5):566-70.
3. Adam T, Ralaidovy AH, Ross AL, Reeder JC, Swaminathan S. Tracking global resources and capacity for health research: time to reassess strategies and investment decisions. Health Res Policy Syst. 2023;21(1):93.
4. Williams JTW, Colagiuri P, Beggs PJ, Zhang Y. Disparities in health and climate change research funding: the funders and the funded. J Climate Change Health. 2026;27:100633.
5. Keshri VR, Bhaumik S. The feudal structure of global health and its implications for decolonisation. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7(9):e010603.
6. Bhakuni H, Abimbola S. Epistemic injustice in academic global health. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(10):e1465-e1470.
7. Bump JB, Aniebo I. Colonialism, malaria, and the decolonization of global health. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2022;2(9):e0000936.
8. Tuck E, Yang KW. Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society. 2012;1(1):1-40.
9. Allotey P, Reidpath DD. Undoing supremacy in global health will require more than decolonisation. Lancet. 2021;397(10279):1058.
10. Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann. 1969;35(4):216-24.
11. Büyüm AM, Kenney C, Koris A, Mkumba L, Raveendran Y. Decolonising global health: if not now, when? BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(8):e003394.
12. Ham EI, Perez-Chadid DA, Wang Z, Abdi H, Shlobin NA, Negida A, et al. Authorship Disparities in International Neurosurgical Research Collaborations: A Bibliometric Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2023;177:165-171.e2.
13. Mbaye R, Gebeyehu R, Hossmann S, Mbarga N, Bih-Neh E, Eteki L, et al. Who is telling the story? A systematic review of authorship for infectious disease research conducted in Africa, 1980-2016. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(5):e001855.
14. Bourlon MT, Jiménez Franco B, Castro-Alonso FJ, Bourlon C, Matar CF, Gunn E, et al. Global Oncology Authorship and Readership Patterns. JCO Glob Oncol. 2022;8:e2100299.
15. Charani E, Abimbola S, Pai M, Adeyi O, Mendelson M, Laxminarayan R, et al. Funders: The missing link in equitable global health research? PLOS Glob Public Health. 2022;2(6):e0000583.
16. Lourenco MV, Borelli WV, Duran-Aniotz C, Zimmer ER, de Castro SS. Promoting diversity and overcoming publication barriers in Latin American neuroscience and Alzheimer's disease research: A call to action. Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2023;9(1):e12378.
17. Majid H, Jafri L, Ahmed S, Abid MA, Aamir M, Ijaz A, et al. Publication dynamics: what can be done to eliminate barriers to publishing full manuscripts by the postgraduate trainees of a low-middle income country? BMC Res Notes. 2022;15(1):249.
18. Erondu NA, Aniebo I, Kyobutungi C, Midega J, Okiro E, Okumu F. Open letter to international funders of science and development in Africa. Nat Med. 2021;27(5):742-744.
19. cOAlition S. Technical guidance and requirements [Internet]. [cited 2026 Oct 26]. Available from: https://www.coalition-s.org/technical-guidance_and_requirements/
20. Kowaltowski AJ, Arruda JRF, Nussenzveig PA, Silber AM. Guest post: article processing charges are a heavy burden for middle income countries [Internet]. The Scholarly Kitchen. 2023 Mar 9 [cited 2026 Oct 26]. Available from: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/03/09/guest-post-article-processing-charges-are-a-heavy-burden-for-middle-income-countries/
21. Saloojee H, Pettifor JM. Maximizing Access and Minimizing Barriers to Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Open Access and Health Equity. Calcif Tissue Int. 2024;114(2):83-85.
22. Faruk MO. Addressing epistemic injustice in the mental healthcare of Indigenous people in Bangladesh: Implications for global mental health. Glob Ment Health (Camb). 2025;12:e52.
23. Cheah PY, Lewycka S, de Vries J. Tracing epistemic injustice in global antimicrobial resistance research. Trends Microbiol. 2025;33(6):577-579.
24. Almeida CPB, Andom AT, Casseus A, Do JM, Gelin A, Lecca L, et al. Revealing disparities in representation in knowledge generation and guideline development. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024;24(1):1516.
25. Khan T, Abimbola S, Kyobutungi C, Pai M. How we classify countries and people-and why it matters. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7(6):e009704.
26. Storz MA, Lederer AK, Heymann EP. Medical students from German-speaking countries on abroad electives in Africa: destinations, motivations, trends and ethical dilemmas. Hum Resour Health. 2022;20(1):9.
27. Kumwenda B, Dowell J, Daniels K, Merrylees N. Medical electives in sub-Saharan Africa: a host perspective. Med Educ. 2015;49(6):623-33.
28. Crump JA, Sugarman J; Working Group on Ethics Guidelines for Global Health Training. Ethics and best practice guidelines for training experiences in global health. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010;83(6):1178-82.
29. Arfeen Z, Diaz B, Whitehead CR, Rashid MA. An opportunity to be grateful for? Exploring discourses about international medical graduates from India and Pakistan to the UK between 1960 and 1980. BMJ Glob Health. 2024;9(6):e014840.
30. Persaud A, Bhugra D, Ventriglio A. Addressing visa inequities in health: a geopsychiatry perspective. J R Soc Med. 2025;118(1):26-29.
31. Novak S, Venzor Strader A, Gbagornah P, Orrego Villegas S. Beyond paper walls: From diagnosis to action on visa inequities in global health. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2026;6(7):e0006964.
32. Louie P, Wilkes R. Representations of race and skin tone in medical textbook imagery. Soc Sci Med. 2018;202:38-42.
33. Vyas DA, Eisenstein LG, Jones DS. Hidden in Plain Sight - Reconsidering the Use of Race Correction in Clinical Algorithms. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(9):874-882.
34. Monette EM, McHugh D, Smith MJ, Canas E, Jabo N, Henley P, et al. Informing 'good' global health research partnerships: A scoping review of guiding principles. Glob Health Action. 2021;14(1):1892308.
35. Pulido M. CRediT taxonomy: a system for identifying the contribution of each author in a scientific article. Med Clin (Barc). 2023;161(2):62-64. English, Spanish.
36. National Information Standards Organization. CRediT role descriptors [Internet]. [cited 2026 Oct 26]. Available from: https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles-defined/
37. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors [Internet]. [cited 2026 Oct 26]. Available from: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
38. Rees CA, Ali M, Kisenge R, Ideh RC, Sirna SJ, Britto CD, et al. Where there is no local author: a network bibliometric analysis of authorship parasitism among research conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(10):e006982.
39. Hedt-Gauthier BL, Jeufack HM, Neufeld NH, Alem A, Sauer S, Odhiambo J, et al. Stuck in the middle: a systematic review of authorship in collaborative health research in Africa, 2014-2016. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(5):e001853.
40. Syed SB, Dadwal V, Martin G. Reverse innovation in global health systems: towards global innovation flow. Global Health. 2013;9:36.
41. Harris M, Weisberger E, Silver D, Dadwal V, Macinko J. That's not how the learning works - the paradox of reverse innovation: a qualitative study. Global Health. 2016;12:36.
42. Basu L, Pronovost P, Molello NE, Syed SB, Wu AW. The role of South-North partnerships in promoting shared learning and knowledge transfer. Global Health. 2017;13(1):64.
43. Zhang S, Dickinson M, Umuhoza C, Masaisa F, Rusingiza E, Munyaneza E, et al. Ensuring equitable engagement in global health education: Rwandan perspectives and observations about learner exchange with high-income countries. BMJ Glob Health. 2025;10(12):e018985.
44. Edwards JG, Russ CM, Alayande B, Dela Rosa JG, Dogar M, Fitzgerald TN, et al. Assessing content validity of learner milestones for decolonial global health education: A modified Delphi study. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2026;6(3):e0005016.
45. Quaglio G, Nsubuga JB, Maziku D, Tsegaye A, Parise N, Cavagna C, et al. International medical electives in Sub-Saharan Africa: experiences from a 19-year NGO-driven initiative. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):184.
46. Edwards R, Piachaud J, Rowson M, Miranda J. Understanding global health issues: are international medical electives the answer? Med Educ. 2004;38(7):688-90.
47. Nasir S, Shahnawaz MG, Giménez-Llort L. In support of 'Addressing visa inequities in health: a geopsychiatry perspective'. J R Soc Med. 2025;118(2):40-41.
48. International Health Economics Association. Change of venue for 2025 congress [Internet]. 2024 Jun [cited 2026 Oct 26]. Available from: https://healtheconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/IHEA-CHANGE-OF-CONGRESS-VENUE.pdf
49. Sheth T, Kulkarni SS, Bozika M, Prateek, Sarkar M, Khan SA, et al. Advancing Global Medical Student Research: Key Updates from IJMS and WCMSR 2026. Int J Med Stud. 2026;14(1):7-10.
50. International Journal of Medical Students. World Conference of Medical Student Research [Internet]. [cited 2026 Oct 26]. Available from: https://ijms.info/IJMS/Conference
51. McManus C, Neves AAB, Finan TJ, Pimentel F, Pimentel D, Schleicher RT. The South-South Dimension in International Research Collaboration. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2024;96(3):e20230942.
52. Pudasaini P, Young C. Wiley's automatic waiver of article processing charge (APC): Iterating contribution to the science from the underserved. Clin Case Rep. 2024;12(10):e9471.
53. Hommes F, Monzó HB, Ferrand RA, Harris M, Hirsch LA, Besson EK, et al. The words we choose matter: recognising the importance of language in decolonising global health. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(7):e897-e898.
54. Reza HM, Rono S, Chemoiwa E, Ayua E, Chebichii S, Mkrtchyan H, et al. Establishing equitable partnerships between the Global North and Global South. Lancet. 2024;404(10454):746-747.
55. National Institutes of Health. Updated NIH policy on foreign subawards. Notice NOT-OD-25-104 [Internet]. 2025 May 1 [cited 2026 Oct 26]. Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-104.html
56. National Institutes of Health. New application structure for NIH-funded international collaborations. Notice NOT-OD-25-155 [Internet]. 2025 Sep 12 [cited 2026 Oct 26]. Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-155.html
57. Cullinan K. NIH cuts to South Africa will cause global loss of TB and HIV research capacity [Internet]. Health Policy Watch. 2025 May 15 [cited 2026 Oct 26]. Available from: https://healthpolicy-watch.news/nih-cuts-to-south-africa-will-cause-global-loss-of-tb-and-hiv-research-capacity/
58. Finkel ML, Temmermann M, Suleman F, Barry M, Salm M, Bingawaho A, et al. What Do Global Health Practitioners Think about Decolonizing Global Health? Ann Glob Health. 2022;88(1):61.
59. Manohar N, Liamputtong P, Bhole S, Arora A. Researcher positionality in cross-cultural and sensitive research. In: Liamputtong P, editor. Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Singapore: Springer; 2019. p. 1601-16.
60. Tropical Health and Education Trust. Experts in our midst: recognising the contribution NHS diaspora staff make to global health [Internet]. London: Tropical Health and Education Trust; 2021 [cited 2026 Oct 26]. Available from: https://www.thet.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Experts-in-Our-Midst_2021Report.pdf
Manali Sarkar, 1 MBBS, Sir H. N. Reliance Foundation Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Sayali Sandeep Kulkarni, 2 Faculty of Medicine, Georgian National University SEU, Tbilisi, Georgia, USA.
Maria Bozika, 3 Medical Student, University of Patras, Achaia, Greece.
Prateek, 4 Medical Student, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India. Co-Student Editor in Chief, IJMS.
Sajjad A. Khan, 5 MBBS, Birat Medical College Teaching Hospital, Morang, Nepal. Deputy Editor, IJMS.
Abdulbasit O. Muili, 6 Medical Student, Department of Medicine, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria. Scientific Editor (incoming), IJMS.
Mihnea-Alexandru Găman, 7 MD, PhD, Faculty of Medicine, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania & Department of Hematology, Centre of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, Bucharest, Romania. Scientific Editor (outgoing), IJMS.
Francisco J. Bonilla-Escobar, 8 MD, MSc, PhD, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO, USA. Fundación Somos Ciencia al Servicio de la Comunidad / SCISCO Foundation, Cali, Colombia. Grupo de investigación en Visión y Salud Ocular, VISOC, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia. Editor in Chief, IJMS.
Correspondence: Francisco J. Bonilla-Escobar, editor.in.chief@ijms.info
Cite as Sarkar M, Kulkarni SS, Bozika M, Prateek, Khan SA, Muili AO, et al. Medical Students and Equitable Global Health Research: From Participation to Shared Power. Int J Med Stud. 2026 Apr-Jun;14(2): 57-62.
© 2026 Manali Sarkar, Sayali Sandeep Kulkarni, Maria Bozika, Prateek, Sajjad A. Khan, Abdulbasit O. Muili, Mihnea-Alexandru Găman, Francisco J. Bonilla-Escobar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
International Journal of Medical Students, VOLUME 14, NUMBER 2, November 2026