The Hidden Risks in International Research Collaborations

The first article in this series explores how international research collaborations are increasingly shaping the way scientific knowledge is produced, shared, and applied across diverse contexts, while highlighting some of the overlooked risks that may influence the success, integrity, and sustainability of these collaborations. By bringing together expertise from different countries, institutions, industries, and disciplines, these partnerships help address complex global challenges and generate knowledge, innovation, and impact that would be difficult to achieve alone. Researchers invest time, expertise, and energy because they believe in a shared objective and trust that everyone involved is committed to achieving it. Trust is essential, but trust alone is rarely sufficient to sustain complex international partnerships.

Most international collaborations are successful and conducted in good faith. However, even well-intentioned research partnerships can encounter challenges when expectations, responsibilities, and accountability mechanisms are not clearly defined. These risks are rarely discussed openly, despite their potential to affect both projects and professional relationships.

International collaborations may also involve different legal systems, institutional policies, cultural expectations, and approaches to dispute resolution. What appears clear or standard practice in one context may be interpreted differently in another, creating additional complexity when disagreements arise. Recognising and addressing these risks is not a sign of mistrust; it is an important part of building resilient and productive research partnerships.

The assumption that good intentions are enough

Many professionals enter research collaborations believing that expertise, diligence, integrity, and a genuine commitment to a shared goal will naturally lead to fair and productive outcomes. In an ideal environment, they often do.

However, successful collaboration depends on more than good intentions. Even highly respected institutions, reputable organisations, and experienced researchers operate within competing priorities, resource constraints, performance pressures, and institutional interests. As a result, many collaboration challenges do not arise from misconduct, but from ambiguity. Expectations that appear clear at the outset may never be formally documented, leaving room for differing interpretations as projects evolve. Over time, what was once a shared understanding can diverge into conflicting views regarding roles, contributions, ownership, responsibilities, decision-making authority, and accountability. These differences may remain unnoticed while a project is progressing smoothly and only become visible when difficult decisions, competing interests, or unexpected challenges emerge.

Collaborators may differ significantly in institutional influence, access to resources, experience, funding, and proximity to decision-making processes. Such differences do not necessarily create problems, nor do they imply unfairness. However, they can make it more difficult for some collaborators to raise concerns, negotiate expectations, or challenge decisions when disagreements arise. Recognising these dynamics early allows partnerships to establish structures that promote transparency, mutual respect, and equitable participation from the outset.

Where risks commonly appear

Collaboration risks do not always emerge during the formal stages of a project. In many cases, they arise in the spaces between established processes and formal agreements. This may include manuscript preparation and publication, dissemination and communication activities, project extensions beyond the original scope, informal contributions and advisory support, follow-on work that continues after funding has ended, and activities involving multiple institutions with differing policies, incentives, and expectations. These situations often emerge because the collaboration evolves faster than the governance structures designed to support it.

As projects develop, a gap can gradually form between what is documented on paper and what occurs in practice. Responsibilities may expand, contributions may change, and new opportunities may emerge that were never anticipated when the collaboration began.

Intellectual property is another area where misunderstandings can arise. Collaborative projects frequently generate new ideas, datasets, methodologies, and innovations developed through the combined contributions of the collaborators. When ownership, future use, publication rights, and commercial opportunities are not clearly addressed, differing interpretations may emerge, which may create tension. Even with clear communication, challenges can arise if governance structures, agreements, and decision-making processes do not evolve alongside the collaboration. While collaborators may share common research goals, they do not always share the same standards regarding integrity, accountability, transparency, and professional responsibility.

Collaborators may participate with different motivations and incentives. Some are primarily driven by the research itself and its potential impact, while others may be influenced by institutional performance measures, publication outputs, funding opportunities, career advancement, or professional recognition. These motivations are not inherently problematic, but when they are not openly acknowledged and aligned, it may contribute to differing expectations regarding contributions, decision-making, ownership, and outcomes.

Particular attention should also be given to the position of external collaborators, including consultants, independent researchers, industry partners, contractors, and technical specialists. These individuals may play central roles in project development and implementation, yet remain structurally outside the institutions that ultimately control funding, governance processes, publication decisions, contractual arrangements, or dispute-resolution mechanisms.

This can create a situation in which influence over project outcomes is not always proportional to the level of contribution. External collaborators may have limited ability to challenge decisions, negotiate changes, enforce agreements, or access institutional accountability processes. Where roles, expectations, authorship, intellectual property rights, remuneration arrangements, and decision-making authority are not clearly defined, these structural imbalances can leave some contributors more exposed when disagreements arise.

When individuals disregard agreed responsibilities, it may be influenced not only by personal decisions but also by the professional culture and systems that surround them. Where transparency and accountability are weak, conduct of this nature is more likely to occur and remain unchallenged.

The importance and limits of collaborator due diligence

Selecting collaborators carefully is one of the most important decisions in any research collaboration. Even among well-intentioned collaborators, differing incentives relating to publication outputs, career progression, funding opportunities, institutional objectives, or professional recognition can create tensions that influence decision-making over time. Before entering a collaboration, it is important to understand a potential partner’s professional reputation, track record, communication style, approach to authorship, commitment to accountability, and alignment with shared values and integrity standards.

Seeking references, reviewing previous collaborations, discussing expectations openly, and paying attention to indicators of how individuals and institutions operate in practice can help reduce the likelihood of future challenges. However, collaborator screening has inherent limitations. People may respond differently as circumstances evolve, incentives change, pressures increase, or competing interests emerge. Even the most respected individuals and institutions are not immune to future misunderstandings, disagreements, or challenges.

While careful screening and due diligence remain important, they should be viewed as only one layer of protection. Sustainable collaborations combine careful partner selection with clear agreements, transparent decision-making processes, effective documentation, and governance mechanisms that remain robust regardless of changing circumstances, individual personalities, or competing interests.

Ultimately, the strongest partnerships are built not only on expertise and shared goals, but also on alignment with integrity standards, accountability, professional conduct, and expectations regarding how collaboration will be managed. No due diligence process can eliminate risk, but it improves the likelihood of identifying partners whose working practices, priorities, and approach to collaboration are compatible with the partnership or collaboration.

The limits of institutional protection

Researchers often assume that established governance systems will automatically protect all parties if difficulties arise. The reality is more complex. Institutions play an essential role in research oversight, ethics, compliance, and dispute resolution. However, institutions are also organisations with legal obligations, reputational considerations, resource constraints, and competing responsibilities. As a result, institutional decision-making may not always align perfectly with the expectations of individual collaborators, particularly in situations involving multiple stakeholders and competing interests.

This does not diminish the importance of governance frameworks. On the contrary, it highlights the need to view governance as one component of a broader system of accountability rather than a single safeguard. Institutional processes can provide important mechanisms for reviewing concerns and resolving disputes, but their role is often to assess matters within specific policies, procedures, and organisational responsibilities.

Researchers should therefore recognise that formal processes may not always address every concern the individual participants anticipate. This may be particularly relevant in projects involving external collaborators, consultants, industry partners, or independent researchers who may not have the same access to institutional processes, protections, or decision-making structures as formally affiliated project participants.

Strong collaborations benefit from multiple layers of protection, including: (1) clear written agreements, (2) defined roles and responsibilities, (3) transparent authorship expectations, (4) documented decision-making processes, (5) appropriate oversight and accountability mechanisms, (6) regular review of evolving contributions, and (7) transparent professional communication between collaborators. Effective safeguards are not designed for when collaborations are functioning smoothly; they are designed for when circumstances, incentives, priorities, or relationships change.

The more a project relies on informal understandings, the more vulnerable it may become as circumstances evolve. Many governance and dispute-resolution mechanisms are inherently reactive rather than preventative. By the time concerns reach a formal review process, opportunities may have been lost, relationships may have become strained, and significant time and resources may already have been consumed. For this reason, prevention is often more effective than remediation, and investing in strong governance at the outset remains one of the most effective ways to strengthen long-term collaboration.

Building multiple layers of protection

One of the most valuable lessons from complex collaborations is that trust and accountability are not opposing concepts. This works best when supported by clear structures. Just as critical infrastructure relies on multiple layers of protection rather than a single barrier, research collaborations benefit from overlapping safeguards.

Agreements, governance frameworks, transparency, and accountability mechanisms each serve a different purpose. No single measure is sufficient on its own. The goal is not to anticipate every challenge but to ensure that when questions or uncertainties arise, there is clarity about how they will be addressed. Verbal understandings and informal commitments may help collaborations begin quickly, but they often become difficult to verify when expectations diverge. Wherever possible, important agreements relating to contributions, compensation, authorship, responsibilities, intellectual property, and decision-making authority should be documented clearly and agreed upon by all parties.

Accountability is most effective when it is distributed across collaborators, institutions, funders, publishers, and professional bodies rather than being viewed as the responsibility of any single stakeholder, process, or organisation.

The human dimension of collaboration

Behind every collaboration are individuals who invest far more than technical expertise. They contribute time, intellectual effort, professional reputation, relationships, opportunities, and trust in the belief that their contributions will be respected and valued. Decisions made during a project can therefore have consequences that extend well beyond a single publication, report, grant, or deliverable. Recognising and respecting the contributions of collaborators is not simply a matter of complying with policies or procedures; it is an essential part of maintaining the trust upon which successful collaborations depend.

Professional relationships are often built over many years yet can be undermined by a single experience in which contributions are not recognised appropriately, commitments are not honoured, or concerns are left unresolved. While no collaboration is without challenges, participants should strive to ensure that all contributors feel their work has been acknowledged fairly, their contributions have been valued, and their perspectives have been considered respectfully. The true legacy of a collaboration is measured not only by its outputs, citations, funding, or achievements, but also by the quality of the relationships it leaves behind and the trust it builds or diminishes along the way.

This responsibility extends equally to external contributors, including consultants, independent researchers, technical specialists, industry partners, and others whose expertise may be critical to a project’s success. Influence within a collaboration is not always proportional to contribution, making it particularly important that recognition, accountability, and professional respect are applied consistently across all collaborators.

This shapes future willingness to collaborate, confidence in institutions, and trust in the research community as a whole. In this sense, every collaboration leaves a legacy — not only in the knowledge it generates, but also in the professional standards it reinforces, the relationships it strengthens, and the example it sets for those who follow.

The path forward

To make international research collaborations more resilient, we must move beyond the assumption that goodwill alone guarantees positive outcomes. Trust and good faith are essential foundations of successful collaboration; however, relying on them alone can leave participants vulnerable when expectations, responsibilities, or commitments are not clearly documented. It is most effective when supported by clear expectations, appropriate safeguards, and shared accountability. Policies and frameworks may provide the foundation for governance, but their true value is revealed by how effectively they operate when challenges arise.

The strongest collaborations are not those that assume challenges will never arise; they are those that are prepared to navigate them constructively. The objective is not to approach collaboration with suspicion, but with sufficient clarity and structure to support trust over time.

This article has focused primarily on how collaboration risks emerge and the practical steps researchers can take to reduce them. However, even the strongest safeguards cannot eliminate every challenge. When concerns do arise, questions of accountability, oversight, and institutional responsibility become increasingly important. These issues are explored further in the next article in this series.

Written by Sasha Saugh
Aquatic Veterinarian | Founder, Aquaglobal Veterinary Consulting