Background Parachute research occurs when external researchers, usually from high-income countries (HICs), conduct research in a host nation, primarily in low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs), then publish the results with little or no acknowledgement of local researchers, staff, or the supporting infrastructure. Although widely condemned this practice has been documented across a range of research areas and settings. A recent consensus statement proposed that publications involving HIC and LMIC collaborations should include a reflexivity statement indicating how equity was promoted in their partnership. Several journals including BMJ Global Health and PLOS journals have since started requesting reflexivity statements from authors. So far, no research has been conducted to assess the statements published to date or examine the perspectives of stakeholders on how best to apply and use them. Methods We therefore conducted a document analysis of 24 published statements and 13 semi-structured interviews with journal editors and researchers to understand their views. Results Stakeholders felt reflexivity statements to be a good thing, but that they needed further promotion and senior buy in. Statements should also ideally be completed earlier in the research process. Barriers included inadequate journal capacity, a lack of strategy for monitoring, and challenges assigning authorship. There is a need to establish consensus on the definition of LMIC and early career researchers. Guidance should also challenge assumptions that LMIC are disadvantaged by considering unequal partnerships withing HICs or LMICs. The findings from this study will assist in refining the statements to promote wider uptake within the global health research ecosystem.