Background

Scientific collaboration immensely benefits the scope, speed, and quality of knowledge generation, dissemination, and translation. This has to be particularly seen in the context of shared global health challenges when national boundaries get blurred and researchers from across the globe come together to find solutions. This was amply evident during the recent COVID-19 pandemic [1]. Collaboration is also a platform for greater and more effective transfer of knowledge and technology between researchers with different domain expertise and from different geographies [2]. Complex scientific problems necessitate collaborations for the resolution of challenges, innovative ideation, promotion of sustainable development, and not the least improvement of cultural understanding through sharing and complementing capabilities [3]. Continuous efforts have been made to partner and collaborate for health research programs, particularly between High-Income Countries (HIC) and Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC) to address important global health and systems challenges [4]. The functionality and sustainability of partnership depend highly upon the communications, and pre-existing relationships between partners and continuing collaborative funding availability [5]. Clear goals and transparency from the beginning motivate the partners to commit working together and develop relations to achieve common goals [6].

A several-fold rise in the number and scale of collaboration between HIC and LMIC researchers has occurred in the past decades with impressive developments in scientific methods, funding opportunities, enhancing research capacities, and generation of evidence to influence policies that address the questions of both local and global health relevance [5, 7–9]. The advantages of such approaches have also resulted in greater interdependence between researchers, scientists, and policymakers from across regions and countries [10]. Collaborations across geographies can result in highly cited papers with global impact; such collaborations facilitate upgrading of research infrastructure at collaborating sites [11].

Notwithstanding the gains of collaborative research, studies have also highlighted the challenges, disruptions, and potential discord between institutions and individuals during collaborative endeavors [12–14]. Even though the developmental partners and funders promote national and international collaboration, some collaborative initiatives are also criticized for unequal partnership [9]. Many HIC-LMIC collaborations originating from the HICs, involve the LMIC partners more for priority setting, data acquisition, and publications [15], but fail to build their capacity [16, 17]. Literature suggests that challenges to successful research collaborations are often multifactorial and revolve around a lack of common understanding, task sharing, ability to influence decision-making, credit sharing, strategies for dissemination of findings, and commitment to equity and justice among the partners [18–20].

The current study is part of a larger study on leadership framework undertaken with 47 Indian and six international biomedical scientists. The objectives of the study were to document (a) reasons for forging research collaborations; (b) challenges faced in collaborative research; (c) actions taken by researchers in the face of challenging collaborations.

Methods

Data collection

Face-to-face IDIs were conducted with 47 Indian researchers from the three research domains (Fig 1). Prior consent and appointment were sought from them for conducting the interviews. The interview was conducted at the place of work of the participants and confidentiality was maintained. The interviewer panel consisted of 40 members (PhD, MD), mid to senior-level public health and/or social scientists, who were researchers/faculty at medical colleges/universities or independent researchers (Male/Female) with experience in qualitative research and IDI conduct. A meeting of all the interviewer panelists was convened for orientation and uniform comprehension of the study protocol, methodology, and IDI guide prior to the data collection. A pair of interviewers thereafter visited the selected participants to conduct the IDIs. The interviews with the international researchers from GN were conducted virtually.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Geographic distribution of index participants (N-47).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305159.g001

The median duration of the interview with the participants was 119 minutes (range: 59–261 minutes). All the interviews were audio recorded with prior permission and if the interviewer had any comments, these were also recorded at the end of the interview.

Participant validation exercise was conducted with the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) (41 members) and 14 study participants (working in 14 institutions spread across 8 states and 5 zones). The process was completed in three steps. Step 1: We first analysed the qualitative data collected through in-depth interviews of researchers using grounded theory approach and attempted to capture the emerging themes and interpretations. Step 2: The synthesized and analyzed data was presented to both the study participants and TAG members to check the trustworthiness and accuracy of the findings. Step 3: We organized a one day meeting to seek feedback for interpretative (construct and face) and descriptive validity of the data. This collaborative process provided participants with the opportunity to explore disconfirming voices (objectivism), the ability of the participants to relate these to their personal experiences and the potential addition of data (constructivism) [21–23]. We could not involve researchers from Global North due to logistic reasons.

Results

The profile of the study participants (national and international) is presented in Table 1. Each research participant had experience with at least three or more collaborative works either national or international or both. The participants interviewed from GN had worked in collaboration with Indian institutes and researchers for 20 to 25 years in the fields of demographics, child health, nutrition, and neuroscience.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Profile of the participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305159.t001

Reasons for research collaborations

A range of professional and personal reasons for undertaking collaborative research were identified by the Indian researchers/scientists (Fig 2). The frequently cited reasons for collaboration were: sharpening of the skills, complementarity of capacities and the resources, better quality and impactful scientific work and publications and developing scientific and social network. Contribution to societal good was not perceived to be an important and significant reason for working together.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Reasons for pursuing collaboration research.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305159.g002

i) Professional reasons for pursuing collaborative research.

Indian participant researchers/scientists perceived collaboration as a platform to integrate interdisciplinary and complementary skill sets and to enhance technical and methodological strengths. Each partner in the collaboration brought technical strengths to the research group which in turn resulted in the conceptualization, design, and execution of quality scientific studies and facilitated successful achievement of deliverables. The national and international exposure of researchers from collaborative partnerships brought about an improved work culture and contributed to strengthening the research-friendly environment among researchers and their parent institutions. They “acquired complimentary professional strengths and got access to latest technology, resources and built their infrastructure”. The value proposition of collaboration perceived by the three categories of Indian researchers different somewhat: the basic scientists leveraged complementary professional strengths in joint projects more as compared to the public health scientists (some) and social scientists (approximately half). Collaborative studies also provided opportunities for mutual learnings, particularly appreciated by the social scientists. Collaborative research was often multi-centric and multi-country, considered generalizable, and applicable in cross-cultural contexts, and findings of collaborative research found a place in the development of relevant national policies and programs. Importantly such studies offered opportunities for networking and found ready support from donors and funding agencies.

“Science can be impersonal, in the sense that you look at the work they have done and work they have published and you attribute it to your collaboration.” (R36-Basic Science, South India)

“Collaboration helps you to break the boundaries.” (R7-Social and Behavioral Science, North India)

“We also look for what the other partner brings to the table. We don’t agree to have partners, who just have a name. -—If you don’t bring working value to the entire group, we won’t work with you. (R-17-Public Health, South India)

The GN-based researchers held the impression that only a few of the Indian institutions had a commitment to biomedical research and the reputation of these institutions was instrumental in influencing public policy in India with the work being done in these institutions.

ii) Personal reasons for pursuing collaborative research.

Almost all the participant researchers acknowledged that collaborative studies helped build the technical capacity and skills of both the senior research investigators and their research teams. Most participants were of the opinion that trust in the research relationship and their ability to work together encouraged them to collaborate with their mentors, mentees, friends, and time-tested collaborators. Mutual trust, and transparent communication during the conduct of collaborative research studies with ‘equal’, ‘appreciative’, ‘accommodative, and respectful’ partnerships were important components for sustaining collaboration. Collaborative research resulted in ‘improved quantity and quality of publications’ providing a boost to the participants’ careers. ‘Alignment of research interests’ ‘opportunity to work with credible researcher’ and ‘larger societal good’ were some of the other important reasons for research collaboration. Opportunity to work with well-known investigators was sought for more often by the social scientists compared to other categories. Collaboration occurred and succeeded when mentors believed in ‘treating their former students as equals’.

“Collaboration is one way of growing.” (R-41, Social and Behavioral Science, West India)

“A good successful administrator is that who adapts best practices of other departments or other institutions to your system.” (R-33, Basic Science, South India)

“To me, that personal trust is extremely important because otherwise, it’s always someone watching over our shoulders to see what is happening”. (R-17, Public Health, South India)

“It depends on a personal level because you really need to know the person. You can’t just go out and collaborate with anyone. I know the quality of the work they do and makes me do good quality research.” (R-25, Public Health, North India)

The respondents from the GN acknowledged having built good professional relationships with their Indian collaborators; they understood and respected each other’s cultural differences. The investigators from GN were enthusiastic about collaborating with Indian scientists due to the prevailing academic standards, the general perception of their hardworking nature and ease of communication, passion for research, integrity, and honesty, adherence to the research protocol, accountability, meticulousness, and data transparency. Past experience, training of Indian scientists in the GN, and their reputation as researchers (quality of publications) in their respective fields were reported to be vital in choosing collaborators. It was not uncommon that the initiative to collaborate came from Indian investigators/ scientists. However, both sides looked for complementarity in personal skills and capacity (Table 2).

“I look for excellence and complementarity”. (R-48, Basic Science, Global North)

“I think what to me is important in collaboration is someone, who is really committed to the research” (R-49, Public Health, Global North)

“Not having a critical mass is a big burden…. lot depends on the researcher’s excellence and ability to contribute” (R-48, Basic Science, Global North)

“I think getting to know people face-to-face makes it much easier to understand cultural differences and respect one another’s cultural differences. So I think it is a big positive.” (R-49, Public Health, Global North)

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Perception Global North researchers on investigator, institutions, and research in India.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305159.t002

Challenges faced in collaborations in health research

Most of the Indian participants (38 out of a total of 47 participants) admitted to confronting one or more challenges, at least on some occasions, during the conduct of their collaborative research projects. According to the majority of the respondents, the key reasons for conflict and dissent between the collaborators were lack of mutual trust and power imbalance. The third factor with potential for conflict was related to the local administrative challenges (Table 3). The participants resonated that ‘some learning’ always took place with collaborations, and the same was valuable for enriching future partnerships. It was largely believed that ‘good collaborations’ strengthened interpersonal and professional relationships paving the way for future studies. On the other hand, ‘bad collaborations’ left the participants with lessons to redefine future collaboration strategies.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Challenges faced in collaborations by the index participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305159.t003

1) Theme 1: Trust deficit and lack of confidence.

Trust deficit occurred particularly between the Indian and international investigators when either party breached the ‘rules of the game’, i.e. prior agreements. Collaborators also lost trust and confidence in each other when they continued to maintain distinct ideological views and opinions despite working on common research protocols. This led to non-cooperation, and lack of transparency which in turn affected the quality of work. The participants informed that there was a general tendency of some of the GN collaborators to view the Indian partner as a mere ‘data collector’, and went ahead with the analysis and publication of data without information, co-authorship, or acknowledgment. Biomedical scientists consistently reported experiencing trust deficits and related conflicts. These issues appeared to be common across their experiences. On the contrary, the scientists from GN perceived a lack of concern for the quality of work, deviations on the agreed upon protocol and a non-committal attitude towards deadlines and/or work promised by some Indian partners as the reasons for conflict. Some GN scientists, recounted instances when the collaboration had to be called off due to protocol violations and poor data monitoring leading to the collection of compromised quality data despite repeated reminders.

“I learned one thing before I entered into collaboration, I would make sure my collaborators had a spine and they would not change like this.” (R-30, Social and Behavioral Science, North India)

“It is important that the investigators are able to defend their data and work when questioned, as it reflects the integrity of their work.” (R-35, Basic Science, Northeast India)

“Irrespective of who you are in the field, if you don’t bring value to the entire group, we wouldn’t work with you.” (R-17, Public Health, South India)

“If uniformity has to exist then the knowledge, skill, attitude, running of the project, everything should be as similar as what you are doing” (R-6, Basic Science, South India).

Respondents from GN felt that several Indian investigators were “difficult to work with” due to the unrealistic authorship expectations in publications. Overall international researchers preferred to continue with collaborations where they had greater confidence due to past associations. In general, they did not believe in experimenting or taking risks for new collaborations.

“I would mostly rely on older collaborators, previous collaborators and not develop new relationships.” (R-49, Public Health, Global North)

“Usually Indian institutions have a very hard time sharing data.” (R-51, Social and Behavioral Science, Global North)

“Doing research in India is hard, it is hard anywhere, and in India, it is doubly hard, particularly in leading-edge fields where you see that colleagues in the west or in the north have better resources” [R-48, Basic Science, Global North)

“There is a fairly strong contrarian streak to Indian scientists and academics that sometimes, they take a negative tone.” (R-49, Public Health, Global North)

According to the GN collaborators, Indian researchers were quick to acquire new skills but occasionally demonstrated a lack of willingness as well as the ability to implement or adapt the new skills in their ecosystem. Sometimes the senior leadership in the departments or the institutions of Indian researchers was not receptive to new ideas and thus limited the young researchers from doing creative research.

“The positive experience for me has been, that the work has been productive, highly regarded, which led to not only further research but policy change and to have a global impact.” (R-53, Public Health, Global North)

ii) Theme 2: Power imbalance between partners.

The participants perceived power tussles between the collaborators as the most important reason for conflicts and challenges in continuing with the partnerships. The Indian participants perceived that the international collaborators often demonstrated a condescending attitude since they were often from high-income settings or based in better in-country institutions. In view of the Indian researchers, the feelings of superiority on the part of GN collaborators transformed into efforts to dominate in decision-making, enforcing their views, unequal distribution of workload, discriminatory use of data, uninformed publications, and inequitable credit sharing. Some collaborators tried to dominate LMIC partners by repeatedly reminding them about the resources generated by them to undertake the ‘study’. Incidents were also cited when the collaborators were insensitive towards the cultural and social context of the research personnel, had a derogatory attitude towards the community wherein the research work was being done and collaborators were humiliated and not involved in major discussions and meetings. The participants informed that disrespect from the collaborators made the sustenance of the partnership through the life of the project unsure. Public health and social scientists acknowledged challenges in unequal partnership more often as compared to basic scientists.

“Collaboration should be to grow capacity rather than control it.” (R-41, Public Health, Western India)

“Collaboration is a double-edged sword, I would say” (R-38, Public health, East-north east India)

“There’s a dollar value system and there’s a people value system. Most often I find conflict between these two value systems.” (R-1, Public Health, Western India)

“It should not be that one person is in the driving seat, and the other person just waiting to harvest the benefit” (R-29, Basic Science, North India)

“Forcing to accommodate their views/ forced reviewers to be co-authors. Confusion-miscommunication-manipulation with the paper” (R-30, Social and Behavioral Science, North India)

Some researchers alleged that the ‘lack of equivalent competence and capacity’ of the Indian researchers, inadequate institutional infrastructure (e.g. absence of bio-banks), and absence of protected time for research were considered professional closures by the collaborators and led to arguments and discords. Researchers from institutions located in remote areas in India complained of a ‘geographic location disadvantage’ in collaborating in comparison to those located in metro and/or prominent cities and faced biases from both national and international investigators.

We also explored the possibilities of continued collaborative research activities between teachers/mentors and their former students who were now independent researchers and investigators. Some of the index participants were reluctant to collaborate with their mentors or mentees because, of “changes in the relationship”, differences in their domains of “science”, and fear of being “overshadowed by each other’s reputation”. A few mentors were of the opinion it was in the best interest of their former students to be allowed to pursue science independently and explore domains of research beyond their mentors’ specialization.

“I think when they start off I am still involved for the first couple of years but I like to distance myself from students and especially students in academia very soon, so that they are more independent.” (R-17, Public Health, South India)

iii) Theme 3: Administrative and institutional barriers.

Administrative and financial obstacles were major impediments to successful research collaboration. In addition to the problems relating to allocation, administration, and management of funds, the research leaders also reported that funding agencies invested little time and resources in a thorough site evaluation which led to subsequent roadblocks and delays in research. The complicated and strenuous process of obtaining a large number of approvals and consensus was reported as an added burden by the Indian researchers. Besides these, frequent changes in the composition of the research team of the collaborators, high expectations with respect to research output from limited resources, and unrealistic timelines were regarded as unfavorable for good collaboration by the Indian researchers.

“I feel that when it comes to financial collaboration, it becomes more complex. If technical collaboration, is fine, they will give us an actor’s honorary advisor or something like that. But if it is sharing of finance, how much finance would be allocated to them, and how much finance to be allocated to us? Then the problem starts—“(R-38, Public Health, East-North East India)

Hierarchy and the work processes not infrequently controlled by the international partners, and additional constraints of working within the ambit of national science administrative policies in India resulted in unpleasant collaborative experiences. Two basic requirements for international collaboration, with Indian institutions are the need to have Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) registration to receive international funds and the project to have the approval of the health ministry’s screening committee (HMSC). While the participants stated that these arrangements safeguarded the country’s interests, the processes, at times delayed and even jeopardized inter-country partnerships for research.

Discussion

This study presents the experiences of collaborative research from 47 Indian and 06 Global North (GN) biomedical researchers and brings forward their perception of the benefits and challenges of collaboration. The researchers perceived collaboration necessary for the generation of high-quality new scientific evidence, opportunity to get recognition, build interpersonal relationships for future collaborations, and for personal and professional growth. Most of such collaborations were multi-centric and inter-disciplinary, between acclaimed national and international institutions and investigators. Notwithstanding these benefits, the majority of the Indian respondents also experienced challenges during collaboration. The power imbalance between the collaborators was perceived as the key reason for conflicts, dissent, and disagreements. Trust deficit occurred particularly during international collaborative endeavors when either party breached prior agreements and or well-accepted principles of partnership. Administrative issues could also affect the collaborations when due diligence for task assignment, fund management, and credit sharing was not done prior to entering into developing articles of the partnership. The investigators from GN had concerns about the commitment of the Indian investigators to rigorously follow the research protocol, methods and quality of the work and hence generally persisted with their time-trusted partners.

We identified 10 factors (scientific and personal reasons) for pursuing research collaboration (Fig 2). Other authors have also acknowledged similar motives for both national and international collaboration [5, 28–30]. Dusdal et al emphasized leveraging the talents and expertise of the collaborators, establishing trust, and good work-style fit along with a shared understanding of disciplinary norms, driven by ideas, and available resources [2]. Parker et al reported the additional factors related to pursuing interesting science, involvement of effective leader and scientific value/competence of collaborator, emphasis on capacity building, and openness to discussion on everything including disagreements [7]. Rather than working in silos, the notion behind entering into partnerships has been to solve complex scientific problems and promote sustainable development and cultural understanding [31]. Although the possibility of novelty decreases in large collaborative researches but due to their generalizability, impact is high [32]. Cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary experiences of scientific collaboration were acknowledged by study participants as a process of enhancing technical competence and as an evolutionary process for influence on personality, interpersonal relationship building, and refining working patterns. Rorstad et al underscored the generational change of role in international research collaboration: as the age advanced, the investigators were more likely to be immersed in alternative forms of international collaborations such as chairing committees, participating in network management, and assuming diverse leadership responsibilities [33]. Overall the study participants accrued a wide spectrum of benefits at personal, professional, institutional, and societal levels.

Mutual trust has been consistently mentioned as a critical factor in any scientific collaboration. As opposed to the semi-colonial model of unidirectional distribution of knowledge, competence and resources, sustainable collaboration models emphasize the imperatives of mutual trust, mutual capacity strengthening, and shared decision-making (bi-directional) [34]. Several studies emphasize the value of trust and confidence among partners as powerful justification for sustainability and durability of research collaborations [7, 35–37]. Trust and confidence hinges on equity, fairness, transparency and adherence to the terms of pre-collaboration agreements. Faure et al identified exclusion of LMIC researcher from the research system values (including recognition, reward, publication and grant funding), prioritization of donor interest and LMIC institutions recognized as a sub awardees for funding as important reasons of inequity and fairness in collaborative endeavors [38]. The data or sample sharing with the potential collaborators depends on the national guidelines, and agreement done at the time of initiating collaborations but interpersonal trust and previous experiences linger on as paramount factors for the quality of collaboration [7]. Based on the experiences during COVID-19 pandemic, Modlin et al in their recent publication have reiterated the critical need to focus attention on the multiple dimensions of partnership addressing equity and taking steps to prevent hierarchical structures that raise issues of trust and confidence among partners [39]. Careful and comprehensive development of work agreements, adherence to pre-launch agreements and maintenance of a just and fair approach to resolving all concerns were seen as important strategies for gaining and maintaining trust for both present and future collaborations [40, 41].

Our study also highlighted that power tussle between collaborators was one of the central reasons for not continuing with long-term relationships and is consistent with the other studies. This concern of persisting power imbalance has been voiced by LMIC-based researchers, where often they perceived themselves as a ‘data collector/glorified field worker’ i.e. researcher is responsible for providing data, but being excluded from the scientific, creative tasks and talks of the research and fair credit sharing [14, 42, 43]. The power imbalance and collaborative inequities are reported not only in international but also intra-country collaborations [44, 45]. An important factor associated with power imbalances arises from the control and dependency on technical and financial resources. Walsh et al reported the handling of funds as important factor for mistrust between collaborators; this often occurred when the bulk of the funding originated in HIC and was generated by the northern partners [46]. According to social exchange theory, the notion of reciprocity and the exchange of resources is critical to sharing benefits and obligations among collaborators [47, 48]. Perceptions about lack of equity and fairness further amplify power imbalances and trust deficits. [9]. Gaillard et al encountered problems in the implementation of collaborative research programs due to the asymmetry of distribution of resources and the dominance of the partners in the North [9]. The researchers and science management in developing countries generally pay little attention to ownership, sustainability, and development of national research agenda and capacity development, and therefore often get driven by investigators from the North [34, 49]. Rose et al. in their recent publication on one hand recognized the imperatives of strengthening scholarly identity and overcoming funding and mentorship challenges of LMIC researchers in collaborative endeavors but at the same time they experienced research colonialism [50]. The collaborative studies during the COVID 19 pandemic yet again brought forward existing asymmetries; the design, funding and leadership tended to be retained mostly in HIC settings and missing key LMIC-specific input [51, 52].

The collaborators from the GN who participated in the study also had their important perceptions and concerns about Indian researchers. Uniformly they viewed Indian investigators as enthusiastic and interested in good research despite institutional, administrative, and societal constraints, held accountability for research, and supported data transparency. However, they felt that Indian researchers were hesitant to adopt and implement new methods, skills and limited desire to ‘change’ their research ecosystem. The GN researchers also expressed rising concern about ethics and willingness to share data by local scientists. Published studies have echoed similar concerns about the unequal sharing and use of data in collaborative research [7]. It appears that the challenges of north-south collaboration continue to persist in some measure over the time [53].

Financial ambiguities, administrative roadblocks, bureaucracy, and management capacity were reported as additional barriers to the smooth conduct of collaborative research; some participants were apprehensive of embarking on collaborative or network studies due to these reasons. Varshney et al. describe that administrative challenges are usually related to limited or no communication between the partners possibly due to differences in the education system, language, and culture of the institution [54].

The landscape of collaborative research is rapidly evolving, and this dynamism may lead to changes in near future. Over time research collaborations between and north and south have increased but several of the challenges reported in our study persist in variable forms [55]. Mutually beneficial North-South collaboration is not an impossible task [56]. One of the key principles of complex collaborations is to identify points/areas of interdependency in these partnerships [57]. The increase in collaborative health research particularly the international collaborations during the last several decades witnessed developments in the scientific methods, trans-sectoral approaches, building of technical capacities and skills in LMICs, innovative funding mechanisms, and policies to jointly address the scientific questions on global health problems and the implementation of programs [58]. In fact, the recent COVID-19 pandemic has amply demonstrated the criticality of such collaboration for the benefit of all communities globally [1, 59]. For addressing the diverse forms of hitches in scientific collaboration, the researchers adopted several strategies outlined in BOX 1. The key strategies recommended by the researchers were better alignment of the research interests between partners and well-structured carefully drawn pre-collaboration agreements on all aspects including funding, common grounds of benefits between partners, sharing of the data and credits. Similar framework developed based on theory of partnerships and empirical evidences has been suggested by Meißner et al. [60]. To address power struggle arising out of the access to funds and the funding sources, in recent years, Indian science agencies have started bilateral research programs with the funding for the Indian and collaborating country components comes from respective funding agencies [61].

Limitations: The findings of our study may not directly be applicable to other fields of sciences due to distinctive context and characteristics of biomedical research collaborations. However, we feel that several of the fundamental principles of international partnerships and working together, benefits, and challenges of collaboration might be applicable in different domains of scientific enquiry [62]. One of the limitations of the study was the inclusion of only six international/Global North (GN) researchers who had extensive prior experience partnering with Indian investigators; five of these were from the USA and one from Australia. The views of collaborators from the USA and Australia enriched and augmented the value of the findings of this study although obtaining the perspectives of more investigators spread over several high-income countries would have been desirable. Data indicate that the USA, Germany, China, England are the top biomedical collaborative partner for India [63]. Over two third of the respondents were above the age of the 55 years. We have been cognizant of the age and collaborative research experience of the respondents. We systematically analyzed and compared the perceptions those above and below 55 years but did not find differences in their experiences. There is no central database of both international and national collaborations about biosciences available in India to determine their outcomes. The participants of the study were among the more successful researchers in the country with extensive international collaboration. Although the data is qualitative and reflects the personal experiences and perspectives of the participants, the findings resonate well with published studies from across the HIC and LMICs in a consistent manner. Furthermore, the research collaborations are complex and explaining them in quantitative terms will be challenging [57].

In conclusion, scientific collaborations were considered essential for the advancement of science and solving complex global health problems. Biomedical partnerships are complex collaborations with inherent challenges, the processes are dynamic and outcomes emergent. This requires constant and proactive efforts for nurturing and sustaining the collaboration [64]. The challenges reported in the current publication, also echoed in several previous publications can be surmounted and negotiated amicably when the rules of the game, law of the land, sharing of the credits, and interest of the collaborating parties are addressed and agreed up in a fair and just manner before the start of the collaboration. The benefits of collaborations are multi-directional, multi-sectoral and win-win for all the partners including the larger global community.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

We thank Wellcome Trust for funding this work. We thank all the study participants for providing their valuable time for participation in the study and very much appreciated. We gratefully acknowledge the study group involved in the study during the data collection. Highly valuable inputs and guidance from the Technical Advisory Group of the study are also gratefully acknowledged.