Towards inclusive global collaborations in coral reef science
Our findings show that one in two peer reviewed scientific papers published on tropical coral reef science involve international collaboration, in contrast to 17% that involve work solely within national institutions. International collaborations were greatly valued among survey respondents for their benefits in acquiring funding, facilitating knowledge transfer and capacity sharing, making meaningful conservation and management recommendations, and producing high-quality publications with enhanced likelihood of getting published in international journals. Beyond these direct scientific benefits, international collaboration raises awareness of cultural diversity, and diverse values, broadens perspectives, and fosters bonds and shared practices among scientists, ultimately promoting more inclusive, collaborative science.
Yet, we identified challenges in consistently upholding equity and ethics values across different contexts. Respondents from developing nations report significant barriers to meaningful participation, with their contributions and local expertise frequently undervalued. This is compounded by differing expectations around authorship and recognition, creating a cycle that perpetuates the marginalization of these researchers. These challenges are also reflected in the collaboration networks (Fig. 2) where the clustering of lower-income nations at the periphery underscores their limited access to international research partnerships. Moreover, respondents have often experienced parachute science and interactions marked by tokenism, with parachute science being evident in one in every five papers among the set of tropical coral reef science papers assessed. This raises critical concerns about inclusivity and respect for local knowledge and risk undermining the effectiveness and sustainability of research efforts by marginalising the crucial contributions of local scientists and communities.
In practical terms, this translates into a lack of reoccurring and evolving collaborations and perpetuates the significant disparities we see in coral reef science24,30, skewed heavily towards high-income nations where research funding and institutions accumulate. The research landscape is marked by the dominance of high-income nations in publication output, leadership roles, and collaboration networks, while lower income nations remain starkly underrepresented and marginalized to a peripheral role in research collaboration networks. Researchers from lower-income countries often face challenges such as limited access to research funding and infrastructure, language barriers, and the need to conform to the research agendas set by high-income country institutions, which often marginalizes the research interests and needs of lower-income nations. For example, research and collaboration are widespread across low- and lower-middle-income countries, but gaining international recognition remains a significant challenge for researchers from these regions. This underscores a critical gap in the research landscape, emphasizing the persistent exclusivity of the scientific community and its failure to incorporate diverse perspectives necessary for equitable and regionally relevant research. This uneven distribution is not just a reflection of resource availability but rather deeper systemic issues within natural sciences (and most scientific disciplines) and the wider society which hinder effective partnerships in international research collaborations31.
For conservation and restoration to genuinely embody principles of equity, scientific endeavours guiding these projects must be led in an equitable manner. Accordingly, collaborations stand as the cornerstone of contemporary research and sustainable development goals, yet our results indicate a need to re-evaluate how international partnerships are formed and nurtured in tropical coral reef science. This underscores the necessity for a framework that fosters scientific progress and ensures mutually beneficial collaborations for advancing sustainable ocean research. This collaborative ethos is pivotal in crafting conservation strategies that are both ecologically sound and socio-economically sustainable5,21. Changing these long-standing questionable practices requires a collective effort across the entire research ecosystem. Below, we propose several recommendations for funders, publishers, and the broader research community. These recommendations are derived from a combination of suggestions from co-authors, insights from survey respondents, and lessons learned from published articles in coral reef science and other relevant fields21,24,25,32,33,34,35,36.
Coral reef science, conservation and restoration must extend across national and political boundaries. This requires international funding programs that foster cross-border collaborations, such as epitomized by the global coral R&D Accelerator Platform (CORDAP.org). CORDAP mandates participation from scientists and organizations in middle- and low-income countries in all funded projects, aiming to increase capacity and leadership in these nations while accelerating coral conservation and restoration under principles of equity and inclusiveness. Indeed, funders play a pivotal role and should emphasize equitable funding distribution by prioritising projects from developing nations where climate impacts are expected to be most severe and where funding is limited24,37. In collaborative efforts, consideration should be given to allocating larger portions of budgets to salaries, stipends, and other expenses for researchers from low-income nations to support the leadership of researchers from low-income countries in global research projects24,38. Moreover, funders should draft clear guidelines and provide oversight over collaboration dynamics, ensuring that proposals demonstrate meaningful participation of scientists from developing nations38. Funding for coral reef research should prioritize greater capacity building by supporting training and education programs that strengthen local research capacities, governance and autonomy which is crucial for the delivery of effective coral reef restoration. This could involve the allocation of specific funds for programs to build research capacity in developing nations, including support for education, training, knowledge exchange workshops, and scholarships.
Respondents highlighted issues concerning accessibility and the administrative burden with funding applications. The general lack of visibility of available funding and the time-intensive nature of applying for grants and compiling reports affects funding accessibility and efficiency39. Funding agencies could contribute by providing resources for grantsmanship as well as streamlining and simplifying application processes. For instance, initial applications could be simplified and focus on a summary of the project, with full proposals requested only from shortlisted candidates. Additionally, providing small, fast-track grants to support preliminary work on grant proposals, particularly for researchers from developing nations should be considered. These grants could cover the costs of preparatory research, travel, and consultation to develop strong, competitive applications. Funding accessibility could also be improved, which could come in the form of a centralised platform where funding opportunities are advertised in one place. Having a network of connected funding agencies would also be beneficial to streamline the matching of proposals with the most suitable funding sources, where good proposals could be forwarded to other agencies with a better match of funding criteria, enabling a more cohesive and coordinated approach. Additionally, funding agencies could play a role in connecting projects and researchers.
Limited access to cutting-edge technologies and biases in the reviewing process, may also result in proposals being considered less impactful or not sufficiently innovative. Without compensatory measures, competition simply based on sophistication of proposals and track record will continue to favour applicants from developed nations along the well-known “Matthew effect”, or “rich get richer”, effect in science40. This exacerbates existing inequalities identified in the present study, where scientists from developed nations lead 76% of the published papers, compared to 24% of papers led by scientists from low and middle income countries. There is a need to neutralize biases in funding decisions41. Applying a blinded review process and including a diverse scientific board and proposal reviewers from all major reef regions, who possess an understanding of the unique challenges and needs of each region or nation and their communities, could help mitigate bias by incorporating various perspectives. This approach may also facilitate the composition of proposals in native languages, effectively overcoming language barriers that further disadvantage applicants across many developing nations where English is not the primary language.
Funding bodies may also consider establishing guiding criteria/regulations, that promote equitable collaboration while allowing for flexibility in evolving project dynamics. These guiding criteria/regulations could ensure that scientists articulate how they plan to overcome barriers in international collaborations, emphasizing ethical and equitable research practices to enhance the likelihood of successful, locally-tailored research outcomes42. For instance, applicants could provide an “equitable collaboration statement” with proof of understanding stakeholders needs, longstanding healthy relationships with collaborators, and if relationships are new, they could demonstrate that they have considered collaboration dynamics and highlight how they plan to address authorship and credit, resolve misunderstandings between collaborators, and manage communication for instance. Grants would then be awarded to scientists who have actively considered these aspects of collaborations, ultimately ensuring the long-term viability of the collaboration. By making these requirements binding, funding bodies can ensure that equitable collaboration becomes a standard practice, thereby promoting more effective and inclusive scientific research.
Publishing agencies and editors play a role in democratising access to publishing34,43. Language barriers, the prohibitive costs of publishing, and limited access to scientific journals due to paywalls exacerbate research inequities, further isolating researchers from low- and middle-income countries44,45,46,47. This can be mitigated by implementing measures such as waiving publication fees and providing open access for institution and researchers from developing nations as part of their corporate social responsibility initiatives as well as commitment to open science and data sharing. They should provide language support and ensure that manuscripts are evaluated fairly based on scientific merit, rather than the quality of the English language.
Additionally, biases in the peer-review process tend to favour researchers from high-income countries, making it difficult for scientists from lower income regions to get their work published in high-impact journals48. Promoting equity in the review and editorial process is essential. Enabling a double (or triple-blind) review process, which has been shown to be more robust against biases49, could help minimize biases arising from author nationalities. In the field of conservation, there is as striking underrepresentation of developing nations among editors in conservation journals50, so maintaining diverse editorial boards and reviewers can ensure a more equitable decision-making process. For researchers in low-income nations, serving as editors or reviewers can present economic burdens or capacity constraints that limit their ability to volunteer time. Offering stipends or honoraria for editorial and review work would help compensate for the time commitment involved, while introducing collaborative co-editor models—pairing early-career researchers with experienced editors—could distribute workloads and provide valuable mentorship opportunities.
Increasing diversity in editorial boards could also allow for acceptance of multilingual publications. Science needs to be accessible to local policymakers, practitioners, and communities, making it essential to also publish in native languages to ensure that the research can be applied. Furthermore, publishers can contribute to capacity building by providing resources to help navigate the complexities of the publication process effectively.
Journals have a unique responsibility and play a central role in eliminating extractive research practices, such as parachute science. They could achieve this by rejecting articles from research carried out in foreign contexts that do not acknowledge any local collaborators, do not have the required permits, and by prioritizing studies that demonstrate sincere co-design and co-development with local researchers25, which should be reflected in authorship positions34. However, mandating local involvement can strain local institutions in countries with limited research capacity, potentially diverting them from their own research priorities. Accordingly, exceptions should be allowed where necessary. If local institutions are unable to collaborate but want the research to proceed, researchers could provide documented evidence that local institutions were consulted, gave their permission, and that all raw and processed data will be shared with them.
The scientific community should also take proactive measures to facilitate the participation of scientists from lower income countries in international congresses, conferences, societies and workshops where networking opportunities abound. This could be done by providing financial assistance and scholarships to overcome the financial barriers. For instance, only 12% of the over 900 members of the International Coral Reef Society, the “principal association to which coral reef scientists, managers and enthusiasts from across the world belong”, pertain to low- and middle-income countries, likely due to membership fees (ICRS officer pers. comm. on 27.05.2024). Alternatively, providing options to join congresses, conferences and workshops virtually could ensure broader access for those unable to travel or such events should be hosted in developing nations where coral reefs are concentrated. This would result in increased accessibility for local scientists and students and overall enhanced participation due to lower costs. They also provide opportunities to showcase local research and their challenges, potentially inspiring collaboration opportunities. Such events can boost local economies through increased international attention and funding, which can be redirected into coral reef research efforts.
Mentorship programs, where senior scientists in the global north coach junior scientists from the global south to succeed in international science will be highly beneficial for both mentees and mentors. These programs should be encouraged and facilitated by scientific societies, funders and international organizations that include coral reef science within their mission. In the absence of these organized mentorship programs, senior coral reef scientists can take the initiative to establish a peer-to-peer mentorship program, using available resources to deliver and maintain the program.
To enhance the impact and inclusivity of scientific research, it is crucial to adopt a more interdisciplinary approach. Collaborating with social scientists and local communities and stakeholder can provide valuable insights into the social and cultural dimensions of environmental issues, while integrating traditional ecological knowledge can offer unique perspectives and solutions rooted in long-standing local practices5,51. Expanding training programs to include indigenous knowledge systems for Western scientists could help develop a deeper understanding and recognition of the value of this knowledge, making it easier to identify pathways for meaningful integration and collaboration. This approach not only enriches scientific understanding but also ensures that research outcomes are more relevant and beneficial to the communities involved. Scientists should respect different types of knowledge, fostering collaborations that bridge scientific and traditional practices for holistic and sustainable solutions.
Our results indicate that collaborations didn’t commonly reoccur, suggesting that relationships were neither sustained nor evolved over time. This, combined with issues of misunderstandings and differing expectations, underscores a clear need for improved communication. Collaborative teams must establish clear communication from the outset, ensuring transparency about project goals and priorities, expectations, and the roles of each collaborator. These should be co-defined at the project’s inception on mutual terms5,52. Prioritizing inclusivity and local engagement by fostering inclusive decision-making processes and actively involving local scientists in all stages of the research process, from proposal writing to publication, ensure that the research is relevant and beneficial to the regional or local context24,38. As seen in our survey, the absence of responses from low-income nations underscores systemic barriers such as accessibility issues, cultural differences, and a lack of trust, which likely extend to broader international collaborations. Addressing these barriers will require greater personal outreach, and the involvement of trusted regional advocates and the development of culturally sensitive practices to rebuild trust and create pathways for meaningful participation and inclusion in global collaboration.
Transparency and openness should be fundamental principles of the research process, encompassing the sharing of raw and processed data, results, and resources. Data sharing and handling still face significant cultural, legal, and ethical obstacles for international collaborators and global networks. Frameworks like the FAIR principles while designed to promote data sharing, reuse, and transparency in research, can themselves pose challenges in implementation53. These challenges are rooted in decades of inequitable research practices, biopiracy, and exploitation, which have eroded trust. Frameworks like the Nagoya Protocol, designed to govern access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing, aim to address these issues but are not universally ratified. This creates legal asymmetries—such as situations where scientists from non-ratifying countries can collect and relocate samples from countries that are parties to the protocol without being subject to the same access and benefit-sharing obligations required from scientists from ratifying nations. Hence, agreeing on data ownership, access and sharing is not the exclusive decision of the scientists involved, but must also comply with the legal frameworks of the countries under which the scientific collaboration take place. Rebuilding trust, not only among the scientists, but also with the policy makers in developing nations, requires a process of dialogue seeking mutual understanding and finding an agreement that suits all. Such policies must be developed through transparent and inclusive negotiations that respect the rights of local communities, comply with national legal requirements, and account for cultural contexts. At the same time, they should strive to remove impediments for the advancement of science and scientific collaboration that some of these protective legal frameworks have created.
Approaching international collaboration with humility and respect, recognizing that knowledge exchange is a reciprocal process that enriches all parties involved, should be an underpinning for all collaborations21. Yet, researchers are rarely trained in fair and collaborative international research or research integrity, providing little or no guidance on how to engage fairly and equitably with collaborators from other nations, particularly with different cultures and different socio-economic contexts. There is a pressing need for educational institutions to incorporate social sciences and ethical considerations into their curricula, providing in depth training on best practices in collaborative endeavours24, ultimately broadening the perspective of researchers and emphasizing the human dimensions of scientific work. Even if this takes some time to be implemented, professors and research team leaders can take immediate steps to address this gap, by holding seminars or encouraging reading on existing research integrity guidelines, like the Singapore54 and Montreal55 Statements and published recommendations on this topic. This would help students become aware of the various aspects of science that are often overlooked in the conventional scientific curriculum, reminding them that science does not exist in isolation from society. Such initiatives can widen their horizons and prepare them to engage more effectively and ethically in international research collaborations.
In conclusion, while it is clear that international collaborations in tropical coral reef science offer substantial benefits, they are also marred by significant inequities and the persistent issue of parachute science and tokenism. For these partnerships to truly foster inclusive and impactful research, systemic changes are imperative across the entire research and conservation ecosystem. Funding bodies must prioritize equitable distribution and capacity building in developing nations ensuring accessibility and support for researchers from low-income countries. Publishers need to democratize access and promote fair review processes, and research teams must commit to transparent, respectful, and inclusive practices. Equally important is the collaboration with social scientists and local communities, who bring valuable perspectives, traditional ecological knowledge, and culturally relevant insights. By embracing these changes, the global scientific community can ensure that coral reef conservation efforts are not only scientifically robust but also contextually grounded, socially just, and sustainable, empowering all stakeholders —including marginalized voices—to contribute meaningfully to the preservation of coral ecosystems.
link
