Explore the vast range of titles available.

Follows the changing seasons in a forest as trees and animals are nourished and are dependent on each other.

The contextual knowledge and local expertise that researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) contribute to studies in these settings enrich the research process and subsequent publications. However, health researchers from LMICs are under-represented in the scientific literature. Distally, power imbalances between LMICs and high-income countries, which provide funding and set priorities for research in LMICs, create structural inequities that inhibit these authors from publishing. More proximally, researchers from LMICs often lack formal training in research project management and in publishing peer-reviewed research. Though academic journals may value research from LMICs conducted by local researchers, they have limited time and financial resources to support writing, causing them to reject manuscripts with promising results if they lack development. Pre-Publication Support Service (PREPSS) is a non-profit, non-governmental organisation that works to meet this need. PREPSS provides onsite training, peer-review and copy editing services to researchers in LMICs who wish to publish their health research in peer-reviewed journals. Authors are not charged for these services. After receiving PREPSS services, authors submit their manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal. The PREPSS model is one of many interventions necessary to restructure global health research to better support health researchers in LMICs and reduce current power imbalances.

IntroductionHealth researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are under-represented in the academic literature. Scientific writing and publishing interventions may help researchers publish their findings; however, we lack evidence about the prevalence and effectiveness of such interventions. This review describes interventions for researchers in LMICs aimed at strengthening capacity for writing and publishing academic journal articles.MethodsWe followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to report literature searches in PubMed, Embase, Global Health, Scopus and ERIC. Our keywords included LMICs, low-income and middle-income countries, health research and writing/publication support interventions, with no restrictions on publication date. Our screening process consisted of title screening, abstract review and full-text review. We collected information about the content, implementation and evaluation of each intervention, if included.ResultsWe identified 20 interventions designed to strengthen capacity for scientific writing and publishing. We summarised information from the 14 interventions that reported submitted or published papers as outcomes separately, reasoning that because they provide quantifiable metrics of success, they may offer particular insights into intervention components leading to publication. The writing and publishing components in this ‘Publications Reported’ group were an average length of 5.4 days compared with 2.5 days in the other group we refer to as ‘Other Interventions.’ Whereas all 14 Publications Reported interventions incorporated mentors, only two of five in the Other Interventions group incorporated mentors. Across interventions, leaders expressed the importance of a high ratio of mentors to participants, the need to accommodate time demands of busy researchers, and the necessity of a budget for open access fees and high-quality internet connectivity.ConclusionWriting and publishing interventions in LMICs are an underutilised opportunity for capacity strengthening. To facilitate the implementation of high-quality interventions, future writing and publishing interventions should share their experiences by publishing detailed information about the approach and effectiveness of the interventions.

English language copyediting poses significant barriers to global health authors in academic publishing. Editing is too expensive for most researchers in low-income countries, and large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT may offer a cost-effective alternative. The technology, however, has been criticized for its biases and inaccuracies. In a preliminary, in-depth case comparison, we compared the number and quality of corrections made by U-M GPT, a secure, University of Michigan-hosted generative AI tool, to those from Grammarly and a human editor to text from two draft papers written by Ugandan sexual and reproductive health researchers. Overall, U-M GPT made about three times as many corrections compared to the human editor and about ten times more than Grammarly. U-M GPT was the least discriminating in terms of quality: only 61% (51/83) of its corrections were judged as improvements. Despite this, U-M GPT has advantages, such as a broad scope of correction types, fast turnaround, and no cost. Its disadvantages, which reflect shortcomings of LLMs more broadly, include the need for prompt engineering skill, careful review of corrections, and high environmental costs due to energy consumption. Additional concerns involve data privacy and content moderation policies that restrict discussions on topics deemed as sensitive; these included words related to sexual and reproductive health. Although LLMs could improve equity, efficiency, and productivity, several important issues should be considered when using the technology. Larger follow-up investigations are needed to confirm our findings. Authors using LLMs should consult journal guidelines and disclose their use.

The term \"global health equity\" has become more visible in recent years, yet we were unable to find a formal definition of the term. Our Viewpoint addresses this gap by offering a discussion of this need and proposing a definition. We define global health equity as mutually beneficial and power-balanced partnerships and processes leading to equitable human and environmental health outcomes (which we refer to as \"products\") on a global scale. Equitable partnerships actively work against racism and supremacy. Such partnerships foster processes with these same dynamics; for example, sharing lead authorship responsibilities with meaningful roles for host country researchers to frame relevant questions and to provide context and interpretation for the research findings. Equitable products, such as access to technology and tailored delivery of interventions effective in the specific context, are the fruits of these partnerships and processes.

Background The increasing complexity of sexual and reproductive health research is strengthened by interdisciplinary collaboration. While technical proficiency receives significant attention in research capacity-strengthening, the development of core collaborative skills, such as communication, teamwork, conflict resolution, and leadership, remains underemphasized. The Center for International Reproductive Health Training at the University of Michigan (CIRHT-UM) integrated collaborative skills training into a comprehensive research-capacity strengthening program for health professionals in Zambia, combining technical research instruction with explicit interpersonal skill development. This study explored CIRHT-UM participants’ experiences, perceptions, and outcomes related to collaborative research skills developed during a health research capacity strengthening program in Zambia. Methods Data were collected in June 2025, following completion of the training and seed grant activities, to explore participants’ experiences, perceptions, and outcomes related to collaborative skill development during the program, using a qualitative phenomenological approach, through nine in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions with 28 Zambian professionals, including lecturers, nurses, midwives, physicians, and public health practitioners, who received CIRHT-UM seed grants. Thematic analysis, informed by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory and Gearing Up frameworks, enabled exploration of ecological influences and readiness factors in collaborative skill development to capture barriers, enablers, application, and impacts of training. Results Thematic analysis generated four key themes: (1) expansion of professional networks and interdisciplinary exposure; (2) barriers created by hierarchies, siloed work, and inequities; (3) growth in communication, leadership, and problem-solving skills; and (4) influence of environmental constraints and systemic supports on collaboration. Participants reported increased confidence and teamwork abilities, but highlighted ongoing challenges from heavy workloads and limited institutional support. Focus groups emphasized organizational barriers, while interviews provided deeper insights into personal growth and readiness for collaboration. Conclusions Embedding collaborative skill development within a research training program in Zambia enhances both personal growth and research quality. Egalitarian team environments, structured mentorship, and peer learning were identified as critical facilitators, while entrenched hierarchies and lack of protected time remained significant barriers in Zambian academic and clinical environments. Purposefully designed, inclusive, and well-supported collaboration initiatives improve team effectiveness and professional satisfaction. Sustained institutional policies, research training, and adaptive team structures are essential for lasting interdisciplinary engagement. While these strategies may be relevant to other low-resource or sub-Saharan African contexts facing similar barriers, their impact is closely tied to specific local conditions and institutional structures. Future adaptation should be tailored to each country’s unique setting, workforce, and policy landscape for research training programs that intentionally cultivate collaboration to drive innovation and improve health outcomes.

Objectives: Schools and programs of public health are concerned about poor student writing. We determined the proportion of epidemiology courses that required writing assignments and the presence of 6 characteristics of these assignments. Methods: We requested syllabi, writing assignments, and grading criteria from instructors of graduate and undergraduate epidemiology courses taught during 2016 or 2017. We assessed the extent to which these assignments incorporated 6 characteristics of effective writing assignments: (1) a description of the purpose of the writing or learning goals of the assignment, (2) a document type (eg, article, grant) used in public health, (3) an identified target audience, (4) incorporation of tasks that support the writing process (eg, revision), (5) a topic related to a public health problem that requires critical thinking (1-5 scale, 5 = most authentic), and (6) clear assignment expectations (1-5 scale, 5 = clearest). Results: We contacted 594 instructors from 58 institutions and received at least some evaluable materials from 59 courses at 28 institutions. Of these, 47 of 53 (89%) courses required some writing. The purpose was adequately described in 11 of 36 assignments, the required document type was appropriate in 19 of 43 assignments, an audience was identified in 6 of 37 assignments, and tasks that supported a writing process were incorporated in 19 of 40 assignments. Median (interquartile range) scores were 5 (1-5) for an authentic problem that required critical thinking and 4 (2-5) for clarity of expectations. Conclusions: The characteristics of writing assignments in public health programs do not reflect best practices in writing instruction and should be improved.

Research efforts in Rwanda to improve sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) are increasing; however, comprehensive literature reviews on SRHR are limited. This scoping review examines individual and contextual factors shaping knowledge, attitudes, and practices in the domains of: 1) family planning, 2) abortion care, and 3) other SRHR in Rwanda. Recognizing that individual, community, and societal factors influence RH, this review is guided by Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory. Eligible studies were conducted in Rwanda, included males and/or females of any age, and were published within the past 20 years. Studies reporting views of only healthcare or other professionals were excluded. Thirty-six studies were included. The majority addressed individual and contextual considerations. At the individual level, studies explored knowledge about SRHR problems while at the interpersonal level, the support and attitudes of men and community members for adolescent SRHR were investigated. In terms of healthcare organization, maternal health practices, increased access to family planning programs, and the need for sexually transmitted infection programs was explored. At the social and cultural level, researchers investigated beliefs and traditional gender roles. Regarding public health policy, studies mentioned promoting and increasing funding for SRHR and reducing gender inequities. Our findings can inform SRHR research programs, public health campaigns, and policy advances in Rwanda.

Background Research training in Sub-Saharan Africa is crucial for strengthening the capacity of healthcare professionals and researchers to address specific sexual and reproductive health (SRH) challenges within their communities. Interventions that enhance research capacity and foster a culture of innovation within existing structures offer a practical and economical strategy capable of addressing national and sub-national SRH needs. This study evaluated an intervention to enhance reproductive health research skills to assess research competence changes among participants. Methods A pre-post intervention design was employed. Pre- and post-program assessments were conducted using the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI)-12 scale to establish baseline and endline levels of research competence. Descriptive statistics, chi-squared and Kruskal Wallis tests were used to analyze data. Our data interpretation is guided by the Social Cognitive Career Theory. Results Faculty members and clinicians from Uganda and Rwanda completed the intervention and 84 had complete baseline while 77 had complete endline data. Analyses revealed significant improvements in nearly every item on the CRAI-12 scale after the research training program, including increased Self-Efficacy in Designing and Collecting Data (Factor 1); Reporting, Interpreting and Presenting (Factor 2); Conceptualizing and Collaborating (Factor 3); Setting Expectations for Research Staff (part of Factor 4); Describing the Funding Process (Part of Factor 5); and Protecting Study Participants (Factor 6) (all p = < 0.05). The only items that did not improve significantly were Confidence in Asking Staff to Leave the Project Team when Necessary (part of Factor 4) and Locating the Appropriate Grant Application Forms (part of Factor 5).We proposed a conceptual framework outlining the hypothesized pathways through which training and skill development influence research-related career planning and progression. Conclusions The research training intervention effectively improved participants’ research competence. These findings underscore the importance of structured research training programs in enhancing research skills. Future research should focus on longitudinal assessments to explore sustained changes and the enduring impact of self-efficacy, outcome expectations (anticipations about career-related consequences), and research-related career goals on career planning and skill development. Plain English Summary In this study, we explored whether a unique training program in Sub-Saharan Africa could help faculty members and clinicians become better at scientific research. This training aimed to help faculty members and clinicians improve confidence and self-efficacy in performing meaningful research. To understand how much the training helped, we asked participants about their research skills before and after they completed the program. We used the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI) -12 scale to measure these changes. We compared their answers before and after the training. Our results showed that after the training, participants reported improvement in their research competence. These findings suggest that structured training programs may benefit faculty members and clinicians in Sub-Saharan Africa looking to improve their research skills. Individuals may be better equipped to contribute meaningfully to research by focusing on these areas. Further research could explore the long-term effects of such training programs and how they might work in other environments or with different groups of people.

Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the online resource 1, we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.