Authorship leadership and funding patterns in tuberculosis research conducted in Mozambique, 2010 – 2024: a bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major public health challenge in Mozambique. Although international collaborations have expanded TB research, concerns persist regarding equity in scientific leadership and knowledge production. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed authorship leadership, collaboration, and funding patterns in TB research conducted in Mozambique. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective bibliometric analysis of peer-reviewed TB research publications conducted in Mozambique between 2010 and 2024. Searches of PubMed, OpenAlex, Google Scholar, and CrossRef identified 1500 records, of which 174 studies were included after screening. Data extracted included authorship position, institutional affiliation, study design, collaboration scope, and funding source. Mozambican lead authorship was defined as Mozambican-affiliated first and/or last authorship. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to assess temporal trends and associated factors. RESULTS: Nearly all publications (94.8%) included at least one Mozambican-affiliated author; however, Mozambican researchers were first authors in 47.7% of studies, last authors in 28.2%, and corresponding authors in 42.5%. Overall, 56.3% of publications demonstrated Mozambican lead authorship. Mozambican first authorship declined from 65.0% in 2010-2014 to 42.7% in 2020-2024. Compared with observational/implementation studies, interventional/trial-based studies had lower adjusted odds of Mozambican lead authorship, defined as Mozambican-affiliated first and/or last authorship (aOR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.19-0.88), whereas qualitative studies had higher adjusted odds (aOR: 3.21, 95% CI: 1.16-8.89). A substantial proportion of senior authors classified as Mozambican-affiliated appeared to be foreign researchers holding local affiliations. CONCLUSION: Mozambican participation in TB research is substantial, but equitable leadership remains uneven. These findings highlight the need for stronger locally led funding, research capacity development, and more equitable global health research partnerships.