Accepted: 10 September 2025

Received: 19 January 2025 Revised: 8 September 2025
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.70184
CONTRIBUTED PAPER
Effects of parachute science on local research capacity ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^

1		School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
2		School of Ecology, Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, China
3		Biology Department, Vancouver Island University, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
4		Biological Field Station, Makerere University, Fort Portal, Uganda
5		School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
6		Shaanxi Key Laboratory for Animal Conservation, Northwest University, Xi’an, China
7Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA
8		International Centre of Biodiversity and Primate Conservation, Dali University, Dali, China
9		Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan
10		Red de Biología y Conservación de Vertebrados, Instituto de Ecología AC (INECOL), Xalapa, México
11		School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
12		Instituto Jurua, Manaus, Brazil
13Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA
14 Myanmar Programme, Fauna & Flora International, Yangon, Myanmar

Correspondence
Peng Fei Fan, School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, No. 135, Xingang Xi Road, Guangzhou, 510275, China. Email: fanpf@mail.sysu.edu.cn
Article impact statement: Publication of results of parachute science undermines local research capacity.
Funding information
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities; 23lgzy002; National Natural Science
Foundation of China; 32371741; 32370531

Abstract
Strengthening research capacity is essential to address the global biodiversity crisis. Yet, parachute science often undermines this goal, and its prevalence, costs, and benefits are unclear. We analyzed 13,502 publications on primate research that we extracted from Scopus (1960–2022) to evaluate the effects of parachute science on local research capacity across primate-range countries. We categorized these publications as local (LRP), collaborative (CRP), or parachute science (PSRP) research publications and categorized countries where the research took place as low- to middle-income countries or high- to uppermiddle-income countries. We used generalized linear mixed-effects models to assess how parachute science influenced local research capacity. For 69% of PSRPs, the research was conducted in 59 low- to middle-income countries. For 20% of LRPs, research was led by people from these 59 countries. The disparity in LRPs among country groups was large. Local research publications in high- to upper-middle-income countries were at least 3.6 times higher than those in low- to middle-income countries. Before 2013, parachute science contributed to an increase in LRPs; this trend reversed after 2013, mainly resulting in a decline in LRPs across all countries and both income categories. Strengthening the

This is an open access article under the ter ms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2025 The Author(s). Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.

Conser vation Biology. 2025;e70184.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70184

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cobi 1of14

Li Yang (^^)1,2	Tao Chen (^^)1,2
Paul A. Garber7,8	Yu Xuan Fan (^^^)1
Juan Carlos Serio Silva10	Carlos Peres11,12
Peng Fei Fan (^^^)1
Colin A. Chapman3,4,5,6
Tien Ming Lee2	Michael Huffman9
Onja H. Razafindratsima13	Lwin Ngwe14

capacity to share research in low- to middle-income countries is urgent if international conservation commitments are to be met. We recommend establishing true collaborative and interdisciplinary research teams, expanding local research opportunities, and supporting long-term research projects as key strategies for sustainable research capacity strengthening in low-income countries.
KEYWORDS
collaborative research, epistemic injustice in knowledge, equal partnership, global research equity, long-term research, neocolonial science, parachute science

INTRODUCTION
Research capacity, which is composed of investigators’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes, is needed to design and implement effective conservation strategies (Fromentin et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2023). However, country- and region-wide disparities in social and economic development have led to marked inequities in research capacity, which hinders effective biodiversity conservation in many regions (Zhang et al., 2023). These inequities are exacerbated when researchers from high-income countries lead research in comparatively poor countries with high biodiversity (Stefanoudis et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2023). Many of these high-biodiversity countries lack the resources and expertise necessary for effective, independent conservation research (Miller et al., 2023; Trisos et al., 2021). Without improved local research capacity, these countries will likely struggle to implement effective conservation strategies (Asase et al., 2021; Miller et al., 2023), which will hinder their ability to contribute to local and international conservation goals. This disparity in research capacity has contributed to the prevalence of parachute science and reinforced existing imbalances.
Parachute science, also called helicopter science, or neocolonial science, results in scientific research in poor countries being conducted with limited or no involvement of local scientists (Miller et al., 2023; Schwartz et al., 2021). Parachute science is widespread in conservation biology and tropical ecology and is particularly concentrated in countries that are both highly biodiverse and low income (Asase et al., 2021; Miller et al., 2023). Parachute science is often driven by purposes and motivations rooted in colonial-era interests and power structures (Bump & Aniebo, 2022; Khan et al., 2024) or by scientific curiosity (e.g., primatology) (Sussman, 2011). Despite contributing to knowledge accumulation and the establishment of some new disciplines (Sussman, 2011), parachute science frequently marginalizes local scientists once the discipline becomes firmly established. For instance, the predominant use of English in scientific articles and limited access to these publications because of subscription fees restrict knowledge sharing with local scientists (Atickem et al., 2019; Schwartz et al., 2021). Parachute science often discourages the publication of local findings in English-language journals, preempts follow-up research, and risks overlooking important non-English-language research, which may not receive the attention it deserves (Amano et al., 2021; Odeny & Bosurgi, 2022). As a result, parachute science often overlooks essential local research needs and knowledge (Amano et al., 2021; Odeny & Bosurgi, 2022) and hinders innovation based on local expertise (Hobaiter et al., 2021; Schwartz et al., 2021).
Parachute science also undervalues the expertise of local researchers, underrepresents their role in the global academic community, and undermines trust building, which is essential for effective conservation (Hobaiter et al., 2021; Pleschová et al., 2025; Schwartz et al., 2021). The short duration of foreign researchers’ presence limits opportunities for long-term mentorship, local personnel development, and infrastructure investment (Atickem et al., 2019); reduces the capacity for local scientists to conduct independent research or secure competitive international funding (Miller et al., 2023; Waters et al., 2021); and perpetuates epistemic injustice by reinforcing inequalities in scientific authority and excluding local voices (Bhakuni & Abim- bola, 2021). In response, strengthening research capacity should recognize the value of all partners’ expertise and emphasize equity, mutual respect, and cocreation to foster a more reciprocal approach to mitigating the impacts of parachute science (de Vos, 2022; de Vos et al., 2023; Spalding et al., 2023). However, overcoming the impacts of parachute science requires sustained commitment over decades (Bump & Aniebo, 2022; Raja et al., 2022). To assess the long-term effects of parachute science on local research capacity, it is essential to conduct quantitative research over an extended timescale.

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.70184 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [31/03/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Primatology, with its global distribution of primate populations and historical research imbalances, serves as an ideal model for examining the impacts of parachute science on local research capacity in primate-range countries. Primates are distributed across 88 countries in South America, Africa, and Asia, whereas the United States and Europe have no native primate populations (Estrada et al., 2017). Primates are humans’ closest biological relatives and play a critical role in maintaining ecosystem stability (Chapman et al., 2013; Rogers et al., 2021). Primatology stands as a cornerstone of anthropological and biological sciences, offering scientists insights into human biology, cognition, and sociality (Estrada et al., 2017; Phillips et al., 2014). Primatology largely arose from a mid-19th century debate in the United Kingdom on the biological relationship between humans and apes. By the 1960s, the field was solidly established in the West and Japan because of its adoption of quantitative and systematic field research methods (Sussman, 2011). After the 1960s, field studies in which scientists directly observed
primate behaviors, habitats, and population dynamics in their natural environments became prevalent. This fieldwork was crucial for uncovering rapid declines in primate populations; ∼68% of primate species are now threatened with extinction (Estrada et al., 2017) and vulnerable to negative climate change and human impact effects (Galán-Acedo et al., 2019; Meyer & Pie, 2022; Zhang et al., 2019), highlighting the urgent need for their conservation (Chen et al., 2023).
Historically, primatology primarily developed in Europe and North America (Higham & Dominy, 2018; Schultz, 1976). Japan was the exception; local researchers have advanced the discipline based on sociological perspectives since the 1960s (Yamagiwa, 2010). The economic and social disparities between primaterange countries (those with native primate populations) and research-leading countries created an imbalanced relationship between foreign and local scientists (Rodrigues et al., 2022). These imbalances in resources, information access, and specimen availability persist today (Asase et al., 2021; Odeny & Bosurgi, 2022; Schwartz et al., 2021) and have led to the dominance of parachute science in primatology. Local researchers, with their regional knowledge, are crucial for developing practical and sustainable solutions for conservation (Hu et al., 2019). However, field studies led by foreign researchers often ignore this (Hobaiter et al., 2021; Mittermeier et al., 2005; O’Connell et al., 2017; Strier & Boubli, 2006).
Given the historical development of the discipline and the critical need for local expertise in conservation, primatology offers a compelling case study for evaluating effects of parachute science on research capacity in primate-range countries. We aimed to assess the impact of parachute science on local research capacity across primate-range countries and identify ways to enhance the local research capacity. We sought to support decision makers in identifying countries requiring urgent attention and to inform the development of more equitable and effective systems that strengthen local capacity in primatology and related fields.
METHODS
Primate species and distribution ranges per country
We composed a list of 522 primate species, 520 from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List (version 2022-2) and 2 (Chiropotes israelita, Sapajus cucullatus) from the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (https://www. itis.gov/). We recorded scientific names and common names from both databases and the species’ range countries from the IUCN Red List (Appendix S1). We categorized range country data based on a species’ status as extant (resident), possibly extant (resident), and possibly extinct. We created a list of 193 countries (https://www.un.org/en/about-us/member- states) and included 1 province, French Guiana, which is an overseas territory of France and an important region for primates (hereafter use of countries includes this region). Finally, we created a list of 88 primate-range countries.
We downloaded the national and regional boundaries from the National Catalogue Service for Geographic Information (http://www.webmap.cn/) and Global Administrative Areas (https://gadm.org/). The country’s income was based on the World Bank’s 2022 assessment (https://datahelpdesk. worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank- country-and-lending-groups).
Scholarly publication database searches
We used peer-reviewed publications as a proxy for research capacity, given their academic validation and links to institutional support (Chen et al., 2023; Pototsky & Cresswell, 2020; Zhang et al., 2023). To ensure data quality and consistency, we used Scopus, a structured database covering over 44,000 journals in ∼59 languages (https://www.scopus.com), to download reference data. Scopus provides stable and precise data with better results and filtering options, making it a more reliable choice for literature reviews than Google Scholar, which often delivers inconsistent results and lacks effective filtering (Bonato, 2016). Scopus also offers a comprehensive, quantifiable, and comparable dataset and covers a broader range of journals than other major scholarly databases, such as Web of Science (Singh et al., 2021). Although gray and non-English literature could have complemented our findings, they are challenging to collect and quantify due to varied sources and formats, particularly when papers lack English abstracts or titles. In contrast to gray literature, articles indexed in Scopus, especially those from peer-reviewed journals, offer reliable data and repeatability.
We used scientific names and common names as search topics in titles, abstracts, and keywords and download the citation references from the Scopus database (Santos et al., 2020) (Appendix S1). These reference data were compiled on 10 October 2023. We used bibliometrix R package 4.1.1 to extract the titles, author lists, author affiliations, article types, and publication years (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017). For analysis, we selected 9 document types: articles, reviews, notes, letters, short surveys, data papers, books, book chapters, and conference papers.

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.70184 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [31/03/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

We extracted articles published from 1960 to 2022 because the discipline of field primatology became solidly established around 1960 (Sussman, 2011). We excluded publications from journals that were classified by Scopus as “medicine,” “neuroscience,” “chemistry,” and “chemical engineering” because these focus on primates as animal laboratory models for the study of human health and do not address issues of primate conservation. We then extracted the research site from each publication (from title, keywords, and abstract) at the country level. Because the Scopus database is a citation database without full-text access, we could not search for information in the methods or result sections, which may have excluded some relevant publications. Many titles, abstracts, and keywords lacked research site data. As a result, 60,300 publications (82% of the total 73,802) were excluded due to the absence of research site data; thus, we had 13,502 (18%) publications with research site

FIGURE 1 Workflow in a study of the impact of parachute science on local research capacity across primate-range countries and ways to enhance local research capacity: (a) extract data from studies on primatology, define research types, address the presence of multiple research sites being considered in one publication, identify important collaborative countries for local country, and calculate the count and percentages of different research types; (b) create a matrix that includes local research publications (LRP), collaborative research publications (CRP), and parachute science research publications (PSRP) to model LRP and use this matrix to build a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM).
information. We restricted our analyses to publications from countries where primates occur naturally (Figure 1a), which resulted in our final dataset having 13,502 publications. These were drawn from 1460 journals, 14 books, 271 book chapters, and 241 conference papers. Among these, 594 papers were in 18 languages other than English (e.g., Indo-European, Austronesian, Sino-Tibetan) (Appendix S2) but had an English abstract. The R code used for extracting research site data was adapted from Zhang et al. (2023).
Classification of research publications
We defined a local scientist as a person from the country of the research site and a foreign scientist as a person from outside of the country or region. We classified publications as follows: a local research publication (LRP) had a local scientist as the first author; a collaborative research publication (CRP) had a foreign first author and at least one local scientist coauthor; and a parachute science research publication (PSRP) had no local authors.
15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.70184 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [31/03/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.70184 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [31/03/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Country-level analyses and research metrics
We obtained a full list of authors and institutions, but could not match each author with their specific institution, except for the first author’s primary affiliation. Because the country of each institution was fixed, we linked authors to countries based on their institution’s name. Thus, author participation reflected the involvement of countries where their institutions were located. This did not limit our ability to assess the research capacity of each country as a whole because the affiliated institution often held the intellectual property instead of the individual researcher. In primatology, the first author typically conducts the research; thus, we considered them a valid representation of research capacity. Of 13,508 publications, 2041 were missing country data for the corresponding author’s institution and 11,467 contained it. Among these 11,467 publications, the first and corresponding authors were from the same country on 10,866 publications. Thus, for each publication, we identified only the country based on the first institution that the first author was affiliated with (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017). We could not distinguish foreign scientists with dual local affiliations or local scientists with foreign affiliations, which may have led to under- or overestimation.
When the publication had multiple research sites, we determined whether the publication was an LRP, CRP, or PSRP for each site (Figure 1a). We summed the count of LRPs by assigning each country a value of 1 when the LRP was based on field work in that country. We performed the same calculations for the CRPs and PSRPs. A publication with multiple research sites was assigned to more than one publication category if this was warranted. For example, in a comparative study conducted in China and Japan, if the first affiliation of the first author was a Chinese institution, the publication would be categorized as an LRP for China. For Japan, it would be classified as either a CRP or PSRP, depending on whether any of the authors were affiliated with a Japanese institute. As a result, our dataset included a total of 15,825 publication records.
Research trends
We summed the count of LRPs, CRPs, and PSRPs for each country for the past 63 years (1960–2022) and calculated the percentage for each of the 3 indices for each country. We also identified the publication year of the first LRP, CRP, and PSRP for each country, as well as the 3 countries with the most CRPs and the most PSRPs for each country. We limited this to the top 3 countries because their collaborative publications contributed to at least 50% (mean 86%, range 51–100%) of all collaborative publications for each country.
We examined research trends based on publication type. To measure the change in research trends, we used Mann–Kendall or modified Mann–Kendall tests to assess trends in all 3 publication types across the entire 63 years (Pohlert, 2023). The modified Mann–Kendall test is suitable for trend detection when data show serial correlation. We found serial correlation in all 3 indices and applied the modified Mann–Kendall
test to measure their trends. A modified Mann–Kendall tau >0 indicates an increasing trend, whereas a tau <0 indicates a decreasing trend.
Given that research capacity is related to social and economic development, we divided our dataset into 2 groups: low- to middle-income countries and high- to upper-middle-income countries based on World Bank country income classifications in 2022. We then compared the percentage of LRPs, CRPs, and PSRPs between these 2 country groups with Welch’s 2- sample t tests and reported t, degrees of freedom, p values, and effect size (Cohen’s d). For countries with both LRPs and PSRPs, we also calculated the mean time lag (years) between the first PSRP and first LRP. In addition, we assessed the alignment of trends for the 3 publication types in low- to middle-income and high- to upper-middle-income countries with global trends with Pearson’s or Spearman’s correlation, depending on homoscedasticity.
These analyses were conducted in R 4.2.2 with the trend (Pohlert, 2023), effectsize (Ben-Shachar et al., 2020), and tidy- verse packages (Wickham et al., 2023). We used ggplot2 (Wickham, 2016) and QGIS 3.22 for data visualization.
Parachute science impact on local research capacity
We built generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMMs) to investigate whether articles published during the previous 5 years (pre-LRP, pre-CRP, and pre-PSRP) promoted increased LRPs during the following 5 years while taking into account 6 confounding factors: primate species richness, percentage of threatened species, number of high impact institutions present in a country, remoteness of the country, political stability index, and establishment and expansion of protected areas (PAs) (Figure 1b; Appendix S3). The 5-year interval was selected because we considered 5 years a reasonable period within which to complete a research project and publish the results. We restricted the model period to the past 40 years. The first period was 1979–1983 because most primate-range countries (71/88 countries before 1979) had no LRPs before this period. We moved the 5-year period forward by 1 year at a time to calculate independent and dependent variables (Figure 1b). We repeated these steps until the last 5-year period (2018–2022) was reached; thus, 40 models were constructed.
We calculated primate species richness and the percentage of threatened species for each range country. We downloaded the institution list from Essential Science Indicator (https:// esi.clarivate.com/), which is derived from journals indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection to determine the academic ranking of each institution for each country. We downloaded travel time to the city layer (resolution 1 km2) following Weiss et al. (2018) to represent remoteness (the higher the cell value, the lower the accessibility). We calculated the mean value of all cells in a country to represent the average accessibility for each country.
We downloaded the political stability index (Hickisch et al., 2019) from the World Bank (https://data.worldbank.org/

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.70184 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [31/03/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

indicator/PV.PER.RNK). The political stability index is a relative measure of perceptions of the likelihood of political instability or politically motivated violence in a country. We compiled the PA data from the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA; https://www.protectedplanet.net/ en/thematic-areas/wdpa?tab=WDPA) (October 2023) and the PA data in China from Yang et al. (2018). Because global PAs have expanded rapidly since 1980 (Bertzky et al., 2012), we compared the PA range layers of 1980 and 2020 to assess the increase in PA range size over that period for each country (Figure 1b; Appendix S3). We also downloaded gross domestic product (GDP) data from the World Bank (1960–2022, https://data.worldbank. org/; GDP data version 2.0, https://dataservices.gfz-potsdam. de/pik/showshort.php?id=escidoc:3155894) (Geiger, 2018), Trading Economics (https://tradingeconomics.com/country- list/gdp), and the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (https://www.insee.fr/en/statistiques/ serie/010751772). Based on the World Bank data, we filled null values based on the rate of GDP change (Geiger, 2018). All of these factors were included as fixed effects in the models, whereas the continent associated with each country was considered a random effect because local author representation was different among continents (Miller et al., 2023). We did not transform the data and thus retained the zeros. We split the dataset into low- to middle-income countries and high- to upper-middle-income countries and ran the GLMM for these 2 groups separately. A total of 120 models over the past 40 years (1983–2022) were generated for 3 scenarios (all countries, low- to middle-income countries, high- to uppermiddle-income countries). We considered a variable significant if its Standard error (SE) was smaller than the estimate. We then counted the number of significant variables for each model across the 40-year period (Figure 1b). To measure the average impact on local research capacity, we summarized the effects of each variable by calculating the mean estimate across all models for each type of publication (LRPs, CRPs, PSRPs). We avoided averaging across models due to differences in the underlying data used in different periods.
Calculations were conducted in R 4.2.2 with packages terra (Hijmans, 2024), lme4 (Bates et al., 2015), and lmerTest (Kuznetsova et al., 2017).
RESULTS
Global publication trends
Globally, 8341 primate PSRPs were produced over the past 63 years; 80% of these were produced in the last 30 years. About 4545 LRPs were produced over this same period; 93% of these were produced in the last 30 years. Overall, 69% of PSRPs were based on research conducted in 59 low- to middle-income countries, and only 20% of LRPs were produced from these 59 countries (Figure 2; Appendix S4).
Since 1980, the global percentage of PSRPs steadily decreased and currently stands at 30%. In contrast, the global percent- age of LRPs and CRPs steadily increased (LRP 12% in 1980 and 46% in 2022; CRP 4% in 1980 and 23% in 2022). The trend for the 3 indices in low- to middle-income countries and high- to upper-middle-income countries was similar to the global trend (Appendix S5). The percentage of LRPs has been higher than 50% in high- to upper-middle-income countries since 2016; however, among low- to middle-income-countries, that percentage remained <25% (Figure 2).
Globally, all 3 indices had a positive tau value, meaning an increasing publication trend over the past 63 years (Appendix S6). In addition, LRPs in high- to upper-middle-income countries were 3.9 times higher than that in low- to middle-income countries over the past 30 years. This ratio is similar to the comparison over the past 5 years (3.6 times).
Research publications for primate-range countries
From 1960 to 2022, there were no publications on primates from Swaziland. Twenty-two primate-range countries, principally in Africa, had no LRPs. Eight countries, mostly in Africa, had no CRPs. We identified no PSRPs from Togo. Madagascar had the highest number of PSRPs (1368). Six countries had only PSRPs and no LRPs or CRPs: Lesotho, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, and Timor Leste. Five of these 7 countries were low- to middle-income countries (Figure 3; Appendix S4).
Among low- to middle-income countries, Madagascar had 20% (106 species) of all primate species globally but had only 71 LRPs (4% of the total from the country). Madagascar had 1368 PSRPs (79% of the total from the country), which was 19 times greater than their LRPs. From 2013 to the present, PSRPs in Madagascar (n = 414) were 14 times that of LRPs (n = 28). In contrast, in several primate-range countries with emergent economies, such as China, Brazil, Mexico, and India, local capacity markedly increased over time, whereas in other primate-range countries, especially low- to middle-income countries, foreign researchers continued to dominate research. Fifty-two primate-range countries had both LRPs and PSRPs. On average, the first PSRP was 16 years earlier than the first LRP in these countries (Appendix S4).
The percentage of LRPs in low- to middle-income countries was significantly lower than that in high- to upper-middleincome countries (t = -13.46, df = 82.25, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = -2.42). In contrast, the percentage of PSRPs in low- to middle-income countries was higher than that in high- to uppermiddle-income countries (t = 8.61, df = 110.64, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.55) (Figure 2; Appendix S7). Among the 88 primate-range countries, only 7 had more than 50% of their publications classified as LRPs, whereas 64 countries (73%) had over 50% of their publications classified as PSRPs (Appendix S4).
First authors affiliated with institutions in the United States contributed 1008 CRPs (34% of all CRPs) and 3515 PSRPs (42% of all PSRPs). Beyond the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France had researchers who were engaged
2 For (a, b) all primate range countries, (c, d) low- to middle-income countries, and (e, f) high- to upper-middle-income countries, the number of
FIGURE
15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.70184 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [31/03/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

14511
publications and percentage of the total number of publications for local (LRP), collaborative (CRP), and parachute science (PSRP) articles published from 1960 to 2022 (tau, Mann–Kendall tau).

FIGURE 3 Number and percentage of (a, b) local (LRP), (c, d) collaborative (CRP), and (e, f) parachute science research publications (PSRP) and average value for (g, h, i) number and (j, k, l) percentage of these metrics. Basemap shapefile source: National Catalogue Service for Geographic Information (http://www.webmap.cn/) and Global Administrative Areas (GADM) (https://gadm.org/) (HUM, high- to upper-middle-income countries; LM, low- to middle-income countries). Maps produced with QGIS 3.22 and R 4.2.2.

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.70184 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [31/03/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

the most in PSRPs. Researchers in the United States were among the top 3 frequent collaborators for LRPs in 64 primate-range countries. These countries included 38 low- to middle-income countries and 26 high- to upper-middle-income countries.
Drivers of local research capacity
Countries with more LRPs in the previous 5 years (pre-LRPs) and CRPs in the previous 5 years (pre-CRPs) generally had more LRPs in the following 5 years in nearly all scenarios. In contrast, the PSRPs in the previous 5 years (pre-PSRPs) were initially associated with increased LRPs before 2013, but this effect reversed after 2013, mainly leading to fewer LRPs across all 3 scenarios (Figure 4; Appendices S8 & S9).
Overall, countries with higher species richness tended to have more LRPs in the 3 scenarios. A higher percentage of threatened species was initially associated with fewer LRPs but became associated with more LRPs after 2005. Countries with greater remoteness generally had fewer LRPs. Higher political stability and a greater number of high-impact institutions were associated with more LRPs. The establishment and expansion of PAs were associated with more LRPs across all countries and in high- to upper-middle-income country scenarios but were associated with fewer LRPs in low- to middle-income countries. Higher GDP was initially associated with fewer LRPs, but later with more LRPs in all countries and in high- to upper-middle-income countries (around 2016). The effect of GDP on LRPs in low- to middle-income countries varied (Figure 4; Appendices S8 & S9).

FIGURE 4 Effects (positive and negative) of articles published during the previous 5 years on local research publications (LRPs), accounting for 6 confounding factors and based on results of generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) for (a) all primate range countries (all country), (b) low- to middle-income-countries (LM), and (c) high- to upper middle-income countries (HUM) (pre-LRP, local research articles published in the previous 5 years; pre-CRP, collaborative research articles published in the previous 5 years; pre-PSRP, parachute science articles published in the previous 5 years; PAs, protected areas; GDP, gross domestic product). Model results are in Appendices S8 and S9.

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.70184 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [31/03/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

DISCUSSION
Primate research trends
Over the past 4 decades, primate research capacity advanced significantly in primate-range countries (Figure 2). This progress may stem from disciplinary growth, economic development, expanding academic opportunities, an increase in academic journals, and new technologies, such as the internet, GPS, and remote sensing (Chen et al., 2023; Marginson, 2018; Piel et al., 2021). Foreign researchers also have contributed to some of these advances through training, mentoring, and collaboration (ESSENCE on Health Research, 2023; Mittermeier et al., 2005; Raja et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2023). Together, these factors likely contributed to the rise in local and collaborative research, particularly since the 1980s (Figure 2). Our dataset included non-English papers with English abstracts, and the majority of publications in the field were in English, making our not including all papers in other languages unlikely to have affected our findings.
Although parachute science has declined in recent years, it dominated primate field research throughout our study period (>50%) (Figures 2 & 3). Only 8% of LRPs came from low- to middle-income countries, and the disparity between these countries (LPR = 930) and the rest (LPR = 3615) remained large (approximately 3.9 times higher in other countries).
We likely underestimated LRPs in primate-range countries. Our focus on peer-reviewed journals indexed by Scopus; limited access to full-text publications; few incentives (such as few job opportunities) for local researchers; lack of skills to publish in English-language journals; and high publication costs for students likely contributed to our underestimation of LRP. Although we identified all authors and their institutions, it was not always possible to reliably match each author to a specific institution, except for the first author. In some cases, the first author may have dual affiliations, including a local institution. This could have resulted in LRPs being misclassified as CRPs. Although this misclassification may have slightly skewed the extent of local research, it did not affect our overall conclusions.
We may have overestimated CRPs in primate-range countries. We assumed that CRP represents a true collaboration in which local researchers are meaningfully involved throughout the research process, following authorship guidelines suggested

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.70184 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [31/03/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

by McNutta et al. (2018). However, growing concerns over research ethics suggest that some collaborations may not be true partnerships (Chapman et al., 2019; Cooke et al., 2021; Rodrigues et al., 2022; Saleh et al., 2022). For example, foreign agencies (e.g., National Geographic, Horizon Europe’s Africa Initiative) may require a local researcher as a coapplicant for funding, but this may not always reflect true collaboration. In contrast, PSRPs may be undercounted, particularly in Latin America, where foreign researchers are often favored in hiring (Aupetit, 2020) and grant awards. This may lead to foreigner-led studies being misclassified as CRPs or LRPs. This misclassification may distort observed trends, such as the post-1980 rise in CRPs (Figure 2). Nonetheless, foreign- led projects can strengthen local research capacity when based on equitable collaboration and projects with clear goals, transparency, and sustained commitment, such as the Asian Regional Capacity Development Research on Social Determinants of Health project (Varshney et al., 2016).
Research index and local research capacity
Local research capacity was consistently and positively correlated with pre-LRPs (number of LRPs in the previous 5 years) (Figure 4), suggesting that research builds on what has been done before, and this likely included training, establishing research sites, and developing scientific teams. Consequently, sustained support and a commitment to long-term research goals become imperative for the development of local research capacity.
Collaborative research is associated with more local research in high- to upper-middle-income countries (Figure 4), where collaborations between local and foreign scientists often bring sustained funding, training, and long-term projects (e.g., primate-focused collaborations in Brazil) (Mittermeier et al., 2005). However, pre-CRPs were associated with fewer LRPs in some models (Figure 4), suggesting that not all collaborations strengthen local research capacity. To achieve true collaboration, collaborations must go beyond training. Without adequate research opportunities and academic positions, the long-term impact of training is limited. For example, 128 primatology theses were completed at the University of Antananarivo from 1961 to 2022 (Ranaivoarisoa et al., 2023); yet, fewer than 20 Malagasy primatologists hold faculty positions (H. Razafindraibe, personal communication). This reflects the shortage of academic positions and structural dependencies on foreigner-led research and external funding, which limit stable local research careers (Ranaivoarisoa et al., 2023). Although many graduates work for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and contribute meaningfully to local conservation (Ralimanana et al., 2022), these efforts were often not reflected in our metrics because they may not result in academic publications and are typically captured in gray literature. Consequently, they do not translate into increased LRPs (Appendix S4). Thus, the limited number of LRPs we found may reflect systemic barriers rather than an absence of local expertise. In addition, collaborations remained limited in low- to middle-income countries, partly because local funding is needed to support and attract them.
Parachute science may have initially boosted local capacity, but eventually it contributed to a decline in local research in low- to middle-income countries (Figure 4). For example, Honduras, home to 3 threatened primate species, had no LRPs and only 3 CRPs and 4 PSRPs available (Appendix S4). This implies that parachute science initially provided critical information where local efforts were lacking, especially in low- to middle-income countries that are former colonies with limited research funding and restricted access to information (Asase et al., 2021). However, as local research capacity grows, parachute science may hinder the roles of local scientists, creating a credibility deficit and undervaluing local expertise (Figure 4) (Bhakuni & Abim- bola, 2021). This marginalization fosters interpretive injustice and may ultimately undermine the sustainable development of local research capacity.
Other indices that affect local research capacity
Conducting field research in remote areas presents significant logistical challenges (e.g., physical access, electricity, food, field guides) that take time to surmount and require substantial investment from all researchers, often greater for foreign researchers due to language and access barriers, and may result in fewer products evaluated by academic institutions (e.g., publication number) (Greggor et al., 2016). These challenges may deter long-term commitments from foreign and local researchers and contribute to limited investments in strengthening local research capacity, such as training programs or permanent field stations. These may explain why remoteness often limits the strengthening of local research capacity in primate-range countries (Figure 3) (Huskey, 2006).
Threatened species often have small geographical distributions and inhabit remote areas (Hickisch et al., 2019), making them difficult to study (Figure 4). This may help explain the initially less local research in countries with a high proportion of threatened species. However, this trend was later reversed in the all-country group and high- to upper-middle-income countries. This may reflect an increased investment in biological conservation to support research on threatened species after 2005 (Seidl et al., 2021), with initiatives such as the World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002) encouraging more countries to focus on conservation. Increased funding makes overcoming logistic challenges easier. It is also possible that after 2005, sufficient infrastructure had been established to reduce the logistical challenges.
The establishment and expansion of PAs were generally associated with increased local research in the all-countries group and high- to upper-middle-income countries and with decreased local research in low- to middle-income countries (Figure 4). This is likely because most primate research is conducted in PAs (Bezanson & McNamara, 2019), where study animals can be habituated and are less likely to be hunted. This is especially the case in PAs that are well funded, where poaching

Strategy	Action	
Infrastructure and funding	Build and maintain local labs, classrooms, and field stations
Ensure long-term, stable funding and support international joint institutions	
Training and careers	Provide effective training for academic jobs and grant applications, while ensuring sufficient in-country research positions
Align research with national priorities such as conservation, restoration, and human–wildlife conflict	
True collaboration	Ensure ethical authorship and full involvement of local researchers Reform funding policies to support true, transparent, and long-term partnerships	
Access and ownership	Support local ownership of data, specimens, and research infrastructure Reduce barriers to accessing and publishing, including costs, language, and subscription publication models	
Address inequities	Acknowledge historical imbalances and revise colonial-era practices in science Promote inclusive education and expand proven local-capacity development models	

TAB LE 1 Key strategies and actions to mitigate the impact of parachute science and strengthen local research capacity.

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.70184 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [31/03/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

is suppressed (Estrada et al., 2017). However, financial limitations can lead to funding competition between the operation of PAs and research. In some cases, funding is allocated to paper parks that are not actively managed or used for research. This may explain the negative effect on local research in low- to middle-income countries. Moreover, PSRPs conducted in low- to middle-income countries may further hinder conservation practice due to overlooked or underappreciated local research needs (Waters et al., 2021).
Strengthening research capacity in low- to middle-income countries
Limited investment in education and science hinders research activity of local students and researchers in primate-range countries, particularly among students and early-career researchers (Asase et al., 2021). Training alone will be insufficient to strengthen sustainable local research capacity; it must be paired with capacity development at local universities, expanded job opportunities, and sustained local funding. To achieve these, strategies must go beyond changing authorship patterns and instead focus on establishing national funding sources, strengthening training programs, and encouraging active support from local governments and universities (Table 1).
International cooperation and support will be key to strengthening research capacity in these countries to protect biodiversity. Building and maintaining field stations may be a particularly effective way to support long-term collaborative research (Eppley et al., 2024). However, maintaining stable international support for low- to middle-income countries can be challenged by shifting priorities of NGOs, donor agencies, and foreign universities (Mack et al., 2011; Rodríguez et al., 2006). Developing international joint institutions can fill the gap between urgent conservation needs and the professionals available to do it (Johnson et al., 2021; Rodríguez et al., 2006). This may produce significant conservation benefits because regional conservation-related research correlates with species recovery (Hu et al., 2019). Furthermore, these efforts and funding provided by foreign universities to train local scientists are key to reducing the disparity between local and parachute science in low- to middle-income countries (Ralimanana et al., 2022).
To further support local research systems, sustained effort is needed in areas beyond training, especially in infrastructure development and consistent local funding. Curiosity-driven research, such as most primate studies, is often not prioritized in low- to middle-income countries, where urgent needs lie in agriculture, medicine, and engineering. Aligning primate research with national development goals, such as human– wildlife conflict resolution, reforestation, and sustainable forest management, can help secure local financial support. For example, the Ngogo Chimpanzee Research Project (http:// ngogochimpanzeeproject.org/) integrates long-term primate research with conservation-relevant themes, offering insights into forest regeneration and human–wildlife coexistence. Similarly, at the Makerere University Biological Field Station, local training focuses on pressing conservation issues, such as park– people relationships and restoration strategies (D. Tumusiime, personal communications). However, foreign grants often prioritize theoretical research, which may not address immediate conservation needs. To overcome this barrier, foreign granting agencies, universities, NGOs, foundations, and governments need to recognize and support locally relevant research priorities in low- to middle-income countries, such as the Science Granting Councils Initiative (Maher et al., 2020).
Developing collaborative and interdisciplinary research teams is another effective way to strengthen research capacity in low- to middle-income countries. These teams connect scientists, communities, governments, and NGOs at local and global scales (Mittermeier et al., 2005), facilitating communication with international organizations to better understand the research needs and priorities of these countries. In particular, long-term, trust-based partnerships and sufficient funding are key to these collaborations (Rodrigues et al., 2022). For example, the Gunung Palung Orangutan Project (Knott et al., 2021) supports international training for students and early career
scientists from low- to middle-income countries, which helps build essential research infrastructure. Launching and supporting such projects should be an effective way to strengthen local research capacity.
Parachute science is rooted in historical inequalities and has led to interpretive injustice and systemic biases in research priorities and knowledge access (Raja et al., 2022; Villafuerte, 2020). Recognizing this legacy is essential to promoting fair knowledge dissemination and education (Das & Lowe, 2018). For example, in primatology, natural specimens and genetic material have been extensively collected from range countries yet preserved and analyzed in high-income countries. Correcting this historical imbalance requires addressing and revising colonial-era narratives in education and science and fostering a more inclusive and accurate representation of knowledge (Das & Lowe, 2018).
Our findings indicated that although primate research capacity has grown over the past 4 decades, substantial disparities remain between low- to middle-income and high- to uppermiddle-income countries. Despite an increase in local and collaborative research, the percentage of PSRPs remains high globally. Currently, LRPs and CRPs in low- to middle-income countries are still insufficient to improve the research capacity in these countries. Several factors contribute to this situation, including limited access to funding, insufficient training, and restricted research infrastructure. Collaborative research has contributed to advances in high- to upper-middle-income countries, but many low- to middle-income countries remain reliant on foreign-led research. Parachute science may provide initial support through data and training, but without equitable collaboration and local leadership, its continued dominance can impede the sustainable strengthening of local research capacity over time. Addressing these imbalances will require internal support systems and long-term commitment of international research organizations and funding. Focusing on these gaps is essential for building an equitable and effective research community committed to conservation and sustainable development.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Peng Fei Fan conceived the ideas, designed the methodology, and revised the manuscript. Li Yang designed the methodology, prepared and analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. Li Yang, Tao Chen, and Yu Xuan Fan prepared the figures. Colin A. Chapman and Paul A. Garber critically revised the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to the manuscript and gave final approval for publication.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank H. F. Zhuang for assisting in data preparation and the visualization, L. Zhang and K. Strier for their valuable comments on the original draft, and Y. J. Zhou for her help in figure design. This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (23lgzy002), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32371741; 32370 531).
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
All relative files and codes are available in figshare (https://doi. org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25762545.v1). Any additional information required to reanalyze the data reported is available from P.F.F. upon request.
ORCID
Li Yang (^^)	https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1654-4806
Tao Chen (^^)	https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2460-8451
Colin A. Chapman https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8827-8140
Paul A. Garber https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0053-8356
Yu Xuan Fan (^^^)	https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7320- 4260
Tien Ming Lee	https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2698-9358
Peng Fei Fan (^^^)	https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4747-
5727
REFERENCES
Amano, T., Berdejo-Espinola, V., Christie, A. P., Willott, K., Akasaka, M., Báldi, A., Berthinussen, A., Bertolino, S., Bladon, A. J., Chen, M., Choi, C.-Y., Kharrat, M. B. D., Oliveira, L. G. d., Farhat, P., Golivets, M., Aranzamendi, N. H., Jantke, K., Kajzer-Bonk, J., Aytekin, M. Ç. K.,…Sutherland, W. J. (2021). Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity. PLoS Biolog y, 19(10), Article e3001296.
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975.
Asase, A., Mzumara-Gawa, T. I., Owino, J. O., Peterson, A. T., & Saupe, E. (2021). Replacing “parachute science” with “global science” in ecolog y and conser vation biology. Conservation Science and Practice, 4(5), Article e517.
Atickem, A., Stenseth, N. C., Fashing, P. J., Nguyen, N., Chapman, C. A., Bekele, A., Mekonnen, A., Omeja, P. A., & Kalbitzer, U. (2019). Build science in Africa. Nature, 570, 297–300.
Aupetit, S. D. (2020). Return scientific mobility and the internationalization of research capacities in Latin America. In S. Schwartzman (Ed.), Higher education in Latin America and the challenges of the 21st century (pp. 95–108). Springer.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed- effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
Ben-Shachar, M. S., Lüdecke, D., & Makowski, D. (2020). effectsize: Estimation of effect size indices and standardized parameters. Jour nal of Open Source Software, 5(56), Article 2815.
Bertzky, B., Corrigan, C., Kemsey, J., Kenney, S., Ravilious, C., Besançon, C., & Burgess, N. (2012). Protected Planet Report 2012 - Tracking progress towards global tar gets for protected areas. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC).
Bezanson, M., & McNamara, A. (2019). The what and where of primate field research may be failing primate conservation. Evolutionary Anthropology, 28(4), 166–178.
Bhakuni, H., & Abimbola, S. (2021). Epistemic injustice in academic global health. The Lancet Global Health, 9(10), e1465–e1470.
Bonato, S. (2016). Google Scholar and Scopus. Journal of the Medical Librar y Association, 104(3), 252–254.
Bump, J. B., & Aniebo, I. (2022). Colonialism, malaria, and the decolonization of global health. PLOS Global Public Health, 2(9), Article e0000936.
Chapman, C. A., Bicca-Marques, J. C., Calvignac-Spencer, S., Fan, P. F., Fashing, P. J., Gogarten, J., Guo, S. T., Hemingway, C. A., Leendertz, F., Li, B. G., Matsuda, I., Hou, R., Serio-Silva, J. C., & Stenseth, N. C. (2019). Games academics play and their consequences: How authorship, h-index and journal impact factors are shaping the future of academia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286(1916), Article 20192047.

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.70184 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [31/03/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Chapman, C. A., Bonnell, T. R., Gogarten, J. F., Lambert, J. E., Omeja, P. A., Twinomugisha, D., Wasserman, M. D., & Rothman, J. M. (2013). Are primates ecosystem engineers? International Journal of Primatology, 34(1), 1–14.

Chen, T., Garber, P. A., Zhang, L., Yang, L., & Fan, P. F. (2023). The pattern and drivers of taxonomic bias in global primate research. Global Ecology and Conservation, 46, Article e02599.
Cooke, S. J., Nguyen, V. M., Young, N., Reid, A. J., Roche, D. G., Bennett, N. J., Rytwinski, T., & Bennett, J. R. (2021). Contemporary authorship guidelines fail to recognize diverse contributions in conservation science research. Ecological Solutions and Evidence, 2(2), Article e12060.
Das, S., & Lowe, M. (2018). Nature Read in Black and White: Decolonial approaches to interpreting natural history collections. Journal of Natural Science Collections, 6, 4–14.
de Vos, A. (2022). Stowing parachutes, strengthening science. Conservation Science and Practice, 4(5), Article e12709.
de Vos, A., Cambronero-Solano, S., Mangubhai, S., Nefdt, L., Woodall, L. C., & Stefanoudis, P. V. (2023). Towards equity and justice in ocean sciences. Ocean Sustainability, 2(1), Article 25.
Eppley, T. M., Reuter, K. E., Sefczek, T. M., Tinsman, J., Santini, L., Hoeks, S., Andriantsaralaza, S., Shanee, S., Fiore, A. D., Setchell, J. M., Strier, K. B., Abanyam, P. A., Mutalib, A. H. A., Abwe, E., Ahmed, T., Ancrenaz, M., Andriantsimanarilafy, R. R., Ang, A., Aureli, F.,…Mittermeier, R. A. (2024). Tropical field stations yield high conser vation return on investment. Conservation Letters, 17(2), Article e13007.
ESSENCE on Health Research. (2023). Effective research capacity strengthening: A quick guide for funders. World Health Organization.
Estrada, A., Garber, P. A., Rylands, A. B., Roos, C., Fernandez-Duque, E., Fiore, A. D., Nekaris, K. A.-I., Nijman, V., Heymann, E. W., Lambert, J. E., Rovero, F., Barelli, C., Setchell, J. M., Gillespie, T. R., Mittermeier, R. A., Arregoitia, L. V., Guinea, M. d., Gouveia, S., Dobrovolski, R.,…Li, B. G. (2017). Impending extinction crisis of the world’s primates: Why primates matter. Science Advances, 3(1), Article e1600946.
Fromentin, J.-M., Emery, M. R., Donaldson, J., Danner, M.-C., Hallosserie, A., Kieling, D., Balachander, G., Barron, E. S., Chaudhary, R. P., Gasalla, M., Halmy, M., Hicks, C., Park, M. S., Parlee, B., Rice, J., Ticktin, T., & Tittensor, D. (2022). Summar y for policymakers of the thematic assessment of the sustainable use of wild species of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Ser vices. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platfor m on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
Galán-Acedo, C., Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., Cudney-Valenzuela, S. J., & Fahrig, L. (2019). A global assessment of primate responses to landscape structure. Biological Reviews, 94(5), 1605–1618.
Geiger, T. (2018). Continuous national gross domestic product (GDP) time series for 195 countries: Past obser vations (1850–2005) har monized with future projections according to the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (2006–2100). Earth System Science Data, 10(2), 847–856.
Greggor, A. L., Berger-Tal, O., Blumstein, D. T., Angeloni, L., Bessa-Gomes, C., Blackwell, B. F., Clair, C. C. S., Crooks, K., Silva, S. d., Fernández-Juricic, E., Goldenberg, S. Z., Mesnick, S. L., Owen, M., Price, C. J., Saltz, D., Schell, C. J., Suarez, A. V., Swaisgood, R. R., Winchell, C. S.,…Sutherland, W. J. (2016). Research priorities from animal behaviour for maximising conservation progress. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31(12), 953–964.
Hickisch, R., Hodgetts, T., Johnson, P. J., Sillero-Zubiri, C., Tockner, K., & Macdonald, D. W. (2019). Effects of publication bias on conser vation planning. Conservation Biology, 33(5), 1151–1163.
Higham, J. P., & Dominy, N. J. (2018). The promise of primatology fulfilled? American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 166(4), 783–790.
Hijmans, R. J. (2024). terra: Spatial data analysis. R package version 1.7-78. https:// CRAN.R-project.org/package=terra
Hobaiter, C., Akankwasa, J. W., Muhumuza, G., Uwimbabazi, M., & Koné, I. (2021). The importance of local specialists in science: Where are the local researchers in primatology? Current Biology, 31(20), R1367–R1369.
Hu, Y. S., Luo, Z. H., Chapman, C. A., Pimm, S. L., Turvey, S. T., Lawes, M. J., Peres, C. A., Lee, T. M., & Fan, P. F. (2019). Regional scientific research benefits threatened-species conservation. National Science Review, 6(6), 1076– 1079.
Huskey, L. (2006). Limits to growth: Remote regions, remote institutions. The Annals of Regional Science, 40(1), 147–155.
Johnson, A., Saypanya, S., Hansel, T., & Rao, M. (2021). More than an academic exercise: Structuring international partnerships to build research and professional capacity for conservation impact. Conservation Science and Practice, 4(5), e539.
Khan, M. S., Naidu, T., Torres, I., Noor, M. N., Bump, J. B., & Abimbola, S. (2024). The Lancet and colonialism: Past, present, and future. The Lancet, 403(10433), 1304–1308.
Knott, C. D., Kane, E. E., Achmad, M., Barrow, E. J., Bastian, M. L., Beck, J., Blackburn, A., Breeden, T. L., Brittain, N. L. C., Brousseau, J. J., Brown, E. R., Brown, M., Brubaker-Wittman, L. A., Campbell-Smith, G. A., de Sousa, A., DiGiorgio, A. L., Freund, C. A., Gehrke, V. I., Granados, A.,…Susanto, T. W. (2021). The Gunung Palung Orangutan Project: Twenty-five years at the intersection of research and conservation in a critical landscape in Indonesia. Biological Conser vation, 255, Article 108856.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.
Mack, A., Wright, D., & Osborne, P. (2011). Papua New Guinea Institute of Biological Research (PNGIBR) <www.pngibr.org>: National scientists building capacity to meet the nation’s ecological research needs. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 92(4), 392–395.
Maher, D., Aseffa, A., Kay, S., & Bayona, M. T. (2020). External funding to strengthen capacity for research in low-income and middle-income countries: Exigence, excellence and equity. BMJ Global Health, 5(3), Article e002212.
Marginson, S. (2018). National/global synergy in the development of higher education and science in China since 1978. Frontiers of Education in China, 13(4), 486–512.
McNutta, M. K., Bradford, M., Drazen, J. M., Hanson, B., Howard, B., Jamieson, K. H., Kiermer, V. e., Marcus, E., Pope, B. K., Schekman, R., Swaminathan, S., Stang, P. J., & Verma, I. M. (2018). Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(11), 2557– 2560.
Meyer, A. L. S., & Pie, M. R. (2022). Climate change estimates surpass rates of climatic niche evolution in primates. International Journal of Primatology, 43(1), 40–56.
Miller, J., White, T. B., & Christie, A. P. (2023). Parachute conservation: Investigating trends in international research. Conservation Letters, 16(3), Article e12947.
Mittermeier, R. A., Fonseca, G. A. B. D., Rylands, A. B., & Brandon, K. (2005). A brief history of biodiversity conservation in Brazil. Conservation Biology, 19(3), 601–607.
O’Connell, M. J., Nasirwa, O., Carter, M., Farmer, K. H., Appleton, M., Arinaitwe, J., Bhanderi, P., Chimwaza, G., Copsey, J., Dodoo, J., Duthie, A., Gachanja, M., Hunter, N., Karanja, B., Komu, H. M., Kosgei, V., Kuria, A., Magero, C., Manten, M.,…Wilson, E. (2017). Capacity building for conservation: Problems and potential solutions for sub-Saharan Africa. Oryx, 53(2), 273–283.
Odeny, B., & Bosurgi, R. (2022). Time to end parachute science. PLOS Medicine, 19(9), Article e1004099.
Phillips, K. A., Bales, K. L., Capitanio, J. P., Conley, A., Czoty, P. W., Hart, B. A. t., Hopkins, W. D., Hu, S.-L., Miller, L. A., Nader, M. A., Nathanielsz, P. W., Rogers, J., Shively, C. A., & Voytko, M. L. (2014). Why primate models matter. American Journal of Primatolog y, 76(9), 801–827.
Piel, A. K., Crunchant, A., Knot, I. E., Chalmers, C., Fergus, P., Mulero- Pázmány, M., & Wich, S. A. (2021). Noninvasive technologies for primate conservation in the 21st century. International Journal of Primatology, 43(1), 133–167.
Pleschová, G., Sutherland, K. A., Felten, P., Forsyth, R., & Wright, M. C. (2025). Trust-building as inherent to academic development practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 30(1), 1–13.
Pohlert, T. (2023). trend: Non-parametric trend tests and change-point detection. R package version 1.1.6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=trend
Pototsky, P. C., & Cresswell, W. (2020). Conser vation research output in subSaharan Africa is increasing, but only in a few countries. Oryx, 55(6), 924– 933.

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.70184 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [31/03/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Raja, N. B., Dunne, E. M., Matiwane, A., Khan, T. M., Nätscher, P. S., Ghilardi, A. M., & Chattopadhyay, D. (2022). Colonial history and global eco-
nomics distort our understanding of deep-time biodiversity. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 6, 145–154.
Ralimanana, H., Perrigo, A. L., Smith, R. J., Borrell, J. S., Faurby, S., Rajaonah, M. T., Randriamboavonjy, T., Vorontsova, M. S., Cooke, R. S. C., Phelps, L. N., Sayol, F., Andela, N., Andermann, T., Andriamanohera, A. M., Andriambololonera, S., Bachman, S. P., Bacon, C. D., Baker, W. J., Belluardo, F.,…Antonelli, A. (2022). Madagascar’s extraordinary biodiversity: Threats and opportunities. Science, 378(6623), Article eadf1466.
Ranaivoarisoa, J. F., Razafindraibe, H., Andriamanantena, F., Rahalinarivo, V., Andrianiaina, A. F., & Rakotomanana, H. (2023). Research potentialities in primatology within the Faculty of Sciences since its existence, University of Antananarivo-Madagascar. Revue Internationale de la Recherche Scientifique, 1(5), 821–834.
Rodrigues, M. A., Kiiza, V., McLennan, M. R., Mendes, S. L., & Strier, K. B. (2022). Narratives of positionality in primatology: Foreign/range–country collaborator perspectives from Africa and South America. International Journal of Primatology, 43(6), 1133–1158.
Rodríguez, J. P., Rodríguez-Clark, K. M., Oliveira-Miranda, M. A., Good, T., & Grajal, A. (2006). Professional capacity building: The missing agenda in conservation priority setting. Conservation Biology, 20(5), 1340.
Rogers, H. S., Donoso, I., Traveset, A., & Fricke, E. C. (2021). Cascading impacts of seed disperser loss on plant communities and ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 52, 641–666.
Saleh, S., Masekela, R., Heinz, E., Abimbola, S., Morton, B., Vercueil, A., Reimer, L., Kalinga, C., Seekles, M., Biccard, B., Chakaya, J., Obasi, A., & Oriyo, N. (2022). Equity in global health research: A proposal to adopt author reflexivity statements. PLOS Global Public Health, 2(3), Article e0000160.
Santos, J. W., Correia, R. A., Malhado, A. C. M., Campos-Silva, J. V., Teles, D., Jepson, P., & Ladle, R. J. (2020). Drivers of taxonomic bias in conser vation research: A global analysis of terrestrial mammals. Animal Conservation, 23(6), 679–688.
Schultz, A. H. (1976). The rise of primatology in the twentieth century. Folia Primatologica, 26(1), 5–23.
Schwartz, R., Haelewaters, D., Hofmann, T. A., & Romero-Olivares, A. L. (2021). Ten simple rules for Global North researchers to stop perpetuating helicopter research in the Global South. PLOS Computational Biology, 17(8), Article e1009277.
Seidl, A., Mulungu, K., Arlaud, M., Heuvel, O. v. d., & Riva, M. (2021). The effectiveness of national biodiversity investments to protect the wealth of nature. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(4), 530–539.
Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5113–5142.
Spalding, A. K., Grorud-Colvert, K., Allison, E. H., Amon, D. J., Collin, R., de Vos, A., Friedlander, A. M., Johnson, S. M. o., Mayorga, J., Paris, C. B., Scott, C., Suman, D. O., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Estradivari, Giron- Nava, A., Gurney, G. G., Harris, J. M., Hicks, C., Mangubhai, S.,…Thurber, R. V. (2023). Engaging the tropical majority to make ocean governance and science more equitable and effective. Ocean Sustainability, 2(1), Article 8.
Stefanoudis, P. V., Licuanan, W. Y., Morrison, T. H., Talma, S., Veitayaki, J., & Woodall, L. C. (2021). Turning the tide of parachute science. Current Biology, 31(4), R184–R185.
Strier, K. B., & Boubli, J. P. (2006). A history of long-term research and conservation of northern muriquis (Brachyteles hypoxanthus) at the Estação Biológica de Caratinga/RPPN-FMA. Primate Conservation, 20, 53–63.
Sussman, R. W. (2011). A brief history of primate field studies. In C. J. Campbell, A. Fuentes, K. C. MacKinnon, S. Bearder, & R. Stumpf (Eds.), Primates in perspective (pp. 6–10, 2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Trisos, C. H., Auerbach, J., & Katti, M. (2021). Decoloniality and anti-oppressive practices for a more ethical ecology. Nature Ecolog y & Evolution, 5(9), 1205– 1212.
Varshney, D., Atkins, S., Das, A., & Diwan, V. (2016). Understanding collaboration in a multi-national research capacity-building partnership: A qualitative study. Health Research Policy and Systems, 14(1), Article 64.
Villafuerte, P. (2020). Decolonizing science: What is “parachute science?”. Observatory, Institute for the Future of Education. https://observatory.tec.mx/edu- news/what-is-colonial-science/
Waters, S., El Harrad, A., Bell, S., & Setchell, J. M. (2021). Decolonizing primate conservation practice: A case study from North Morocco. International Journal of Primatology, 43(6), 1046–1066.
Weiss, D. J., Nelson, A., Gibson, H. S., Temperley, W., Peedell, S., Lieber, A., Hancher, M., Poyart, E., Belchior, S., Fullman, N., Mappin, B., Dalrymple, U., Rozier, J., Lucas, T. C. D., Howes, R. E., Tusting, L. S., Kang, S. Y., Cameron, E., Bisanzio, D.,…Gething, P. W. (2018). A global map of travel time to cities to assess inequalities in accessibility in 2015. Nature, 553(7688), 333–336.
Wickham, H. (2016). g g plot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer.
Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L. D. A., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T. L., Miller, E., Bache, S. M., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D. P., Spinu, V.,…Yutani, H. (2023). Welcome to the tidyverse. Jour nal of Open Source Software, 4(43), Article 1686.
Yamagiwa, J. (2010). Research history of Japanese macaques in Japan. In N. Nakagawa, M. Nakamichi, & H. Sugiura (Eds.), The Japanese macaques (pp. 3–23). Springer.
Yang, L., Chen, M. H., Challender, D. W. S., Water man, C., Zhang, C., Huo, Z. M., Liu, H. W., & Luan, X. F. (2018). Historical data for conservation: Reconstr ucting range changes of Chinese pangolin (Manis pentadactyla) in eastern China (1970-2016). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 285(1885), Article 20181084.
Zhang, L., Yang, L., Chapman, C. A., Peres, C. A., Lee, T. M., & Fan, P. F. (2023). Growing disparity in global conservation research capacity and its impact on biodiversity conservation. One Earth, 6(2), 147–157.
Zhang, L. B., Ameca, E. I., Cowlishaw, G., Pettorelli, N., Foden, W., & Mace, G. M. (2019). Global assessment of primate vulnerability to extreme climatic events. Nature Climate Change, 9(7), 554–561.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: Yang, L., Chen, T., Chapman, C. A., Garber, P. A., Fan, Y. X., Lee, T. M., Huffman, M., Silva, J. C. S., Peres, C., Razafindratsima, O. H., Ngwe, L., & Fan, P. F. (2025). Effects of parachute science on local research capacity ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^. Conservation Biology, e70184.

15231739, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.70184 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [31/03/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70184