Global science suffers from persistent geographical disparities that skew research toward affluent countries and regions, primarily in Europe and North America (Maas et al. 2021; Gomez et al. 2022). Despite increased awareness, efforts to foster inclusivity within scientific communities often perpetuate existing biases. Studies claiming to have global representation among their authors are, in reality, mostly skewed to authors from particular countries, typically those that are more economically developed within a given continent. For instance, in research collaborations that include authors from South America, Africa, and Asia, those authors are primarily affiliated with only a few economically developed countries—such as Brazil, South Africa, and China—leaving many other nations on those continents underrepresented. In general, this could deceptively suggest that research is not being conducted in the underrepresented countries. Besides providing a misleading image of global inclusiveness, excluding voices from these regions leads to data gaps and diminished spatial coverage of studies, and overlooks opportunities to enhance scientific capacity in marginalized countries (Shaaban et al. 2024).

This issue is partly driven by international research networks and consortia favoring established “traditional” institutions and experts, alongside the persistence of “parachute research” practices. Scientists from regionally misrepresented countries often face limited professional visibility (eg online profiles, personal websites), as well as restricted access to international conferences, funding, and collaboration networks—further entrenching their geographic exclusion. In addition, many scholars from underrepresented countries often publish research in non-English languages or local scientific journals, both of which are vastly unavailable in or excluded from major international scholarly bibliographic databases (eg Web of Science, Scopus; Chowdhury et al. 2022). Consequently, relying on such databases to ascertain representation within so-called global projects, assessments, and analyses (hereafter, global studies) provides a highly incomplete picture of the actual research landscape.

An analysis of the involvement of authors from misrepresented countries in global studies within the wider field of ecology and conservation (for methods, see Appendix 1: Panel S1) revealed strong regional disparities (Figure 1). In the publications that originated from these global studies (3731 in all), collaborations and authorship tended to be regionally concentrated in only a few economically developed countries, while regionally low-income countries were rarely involved. For example, in purportedly global studies that included at least one author from Africa, authors from low-income countries were involved in only 27% of publications (56 out of 209), which were dominated by authors from South Africa (54%, 112 out of 209)—twice as many as all the regionally low-income countries combined. Likewise, in global studies that included at least one author from Asia, authors from low-income countries accounted for only 18% of publications (273 out of 1499), which were dominated by authors from China (64%, 958 out of 1499), followed by Japan (13%, 188 out of 1499). Similarly, in global studies that included at least one author from South America, authors from low-income countries contributed to only 24% of publications (67 out of 277), which were dominated by authors from Brazil (64%, 176 out of 277), followed by Argentina (21%, 59 out of 277). The lowest participation by authors from regionally low-income countries was observed in North America (5%, represented by countries from Central America) and Europe (14%, mainly countries from Eastern and Southeastern Europe). Many countries in Asia and the vast majority of countries in Africa were involved in just a single study or in none of the assessed studies (Figure 1). This finding is especially worrying considering that many of those countries host high levels of biodiversity, and there is an urgent need for the local scientific community therein to implement conservation plans effectively.

As authors originating from such excluded/underrepresented countries, we believe that a more integrative vision would not only promote inclusiveness but also enhance the quality and scope of research by integrating diverse perspectives and resources. To cultivate true inclusiveness, science must transcend continents and prioritize regional geographical equity in research collaborations. This includes proactively engaging with scientists from underrepresented countries, and moving beyond traditional partners within regions when assembling international research teams and consortia. A freely accessible online database that aggregates descriptions of local expertise and contact information for local experts from underrepresented regions would substantially enhance visibility and collaboration opportunities for marginalized scientists. By actively promoting the platform through global institutions and linking it to funding opportunities, such a tool could foster sustained, equitable partnerships and ensure that diverse voices are integrated into international research. Furthermore, the science of sustainability offers a complementary approach by emphasizing long-term, systemic solutions to research inequities. By embedding principles of equity, inclusivity, and capacity-building into research frameworks, sustainability science can help reshape international collaborations to be more just and resilient. This means co-developing research agendas with local scientists, ensuring knowledge exchange is bidirectional, and promoting interdisciplinary methodologies that address regional challenges in a globally relevant manner. Integrating these principles alongside structural reforms would lead to a more balanced and representative global research ecosystem (Clark and Harley 2020).