Parachute science (inequity in research relationships between Global North and South scientists) has known detrimental impacts on Global South researchers in conservation. Using two international datasets of English and non-English-language studies testing conservation interventions, we compared the continents in which studies were conducted to those in which authors were affiliated. We found that a substantial proportion of English-language studies conducted in Global South continents were led by researchers affiliated to Global North institutions. Studies in the Global South had relatively few locally affiliated lead authors and a higher percentage of studies with no locally affiliated authors. There were similar but typically less pronounced patterns for non-English-language studies. We discuss the potential drivers of these problematic findings and future directions that could help avoid and eliminate unethical parachute conservation science.