Dataset Information

Request a woman scientist: A database for diversifying the public face of science.

ABSTRACT: A global online register of women scientists, ready to share their science, was established by a cohort of volunteer women from the grassroots organization 500 Women Scientists on January 17th, 2018. In less than one year, the database "Request a Woman Scientist" comprised over 7,500 women from 174 scientific disciplines and 133 countries. The database is built upon a voluntary questionnaire regarding career stage, degree, scientific discipline, geographic location, and other self-identifying dimensions of representation. The information was visualized using the software platform Tableau, with dropdown menus that help query the database and output a list of names, email addresses, and websites. The biological sciences and women scientists from the United States of America were best represented in the database. A survey of women in the database conducted in November 2018 showed that of 1,278 respondents, 11% had been contacted since signing up for a variety of engagements, including media, peer review, panel participation, educational outreach, and professional/research connections. These engagements resulted in consultations for articles, video chats with students, and speaking opportunities at conferences and events. With improved functionality and marketing, outreach in the global south, and future translation in other languages, this database will further promote the profile and participation of women scientists across society, which in turn will benefit the advancement of science.

SUBMITTER: McCullagh EA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6478268 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Request a woman scientist: A database for diversifying the public face of science.

McCullagh Elizabeth A EA Nowak Katarzyna K Pogoriler Anne A Metcalf Jessica L JL Zaringhalam Maryam M Zelikova T Jane TJ

PLoS biology 20190423 4

A global online register of women scientists, ready to share their science, was established by a cohort of volunteer women from the grassroots organization 500 Women Scientists on January 17th, 2018. In less than one year, the database "Request a Woman Scientist" comprised over 7,500 women from 174 scientific disciplines and 133 countries. The database is built upon a voluntary questionnaire regarding career stage, degree, scientific discipline, geographic location, and other self-identifying di ...[more]

PMID: 31013291

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAnimal research (AR) findings often do not translate to humans; one potential reason is the poor methodological quality of AR. We aimed to determine this quality of AR reported in critical care journals.MethodsAll AR published from January to June 2012 in three high-impact critical care journals were reviewed. A case report form and instruction manual with clear definitions were created, based on published recommendations, including the ARRIVE guidelines. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics.ResultsSeventy-seven AR publications were reviewed. Our primary outcome (animal strain, sex, and weight or age described) was reported in 52 (68%; 95% confidence interval, 56% to 77%). Of the 77 publications, 47 (61%) reported randomization; of these, 3 (6%) reported allocation concealment, and 1 (2%) the randomization procedure. Of the 77 publications, 31 (40%) reported some type of blinding; of these, disease induction (2, 7%), intervention (7, 23%), and/or subjective outcomes (17, 55%) were blinded. A sample size calculation was reported in 4/77 (5%). Animal numbers were missing in the Methods section in 16 (21%) publications; when stated, the median was 32 (range 6 to 320; interquartile range, 21 to 70). Extra animals used were mentioned in the Results section in 31 (40%) publications; this number was unclear in 23 (74%), and >100 for 12 (16%). When reporting most outcomes, numbers with denominators were given in 35 (45%), with no unaccounted numbers in 24 (31%), and no animals excluded from analysis in 20 (26%). Most (49, 64%) studies reported >40, and another 19 (25%) reported 21 to 40 statistical comparisons. Internal validity limitations were discussed in 7 (9%), and external validity (to humans) discussed in 71 (92%), most with no (30, 42%) or only a vague (9, 13%) limitation to this external validity mentioned.ConclusionsThe reported methodological quality of AR was poor. Unless the quality of AR significantly improves, the practice may be in serious jeopardy of losing public support.

Project description:With the current funding climate and need for advancements in implementation science, there is a growing demand for grantsmanship workshops to increase the quality and rigor of proposals. A group-based implementation science-focused grantsmanship workshop, the Implementation Development Workshop (IDW), is one methodology to address this need. This manuscript provides an overview of the IDW structure, format, and findings regarding its utility.The IDW methodology allows researchers to vet projects in the proposal stage in a structured format with a facilitator and two types of expert participants: presenters and attendees. The presenter uses a one-page handout and verbal presentation to present their proposal and questions. The facilitator elicits feedback from attendees using a format designed to maximize the number of unique points made. After each IDW, participants completed an anonymous survey assessing perceptions of the IDW. Presenters completed a funding survey measuring grant submission and funding success. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a subset of participants who participated in both delivery formats. Mixed method analyses were performed to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of the IDW and compare the delivery formats. Of those who participated in an IDW (N = 72), 40 participated in face-to-face only, 16 in virtual only, and 16 in both formats. Thirty-eight (face-to-face n = 12, 35 % response rate; virtual n = 26, 66.7 % response rate) responded to the surveys and seven (15.3 % response rate), who had attended both formats, completed an interview. Of 36 total presenters, 17 (face-to-face n = 12, 42.9 % response rate; virtual n = 5, 62.9 % response rate) responded to the funding survey. Mixed method analyses indicated that the IDW was effective for collaboration and growth, effective for enhancing success in obtaining grants, and acceptable. A third (35.3 %) of presenters ultimately received funding for their proposal, and more than 80 % of those who presented indicated they would present again in the future. The IDW structure and facilitation process were found to be acceptable, with both formats rated as equally strong.The IDW presents an acceptable and successful methodology for increasing competitiveness of implementation science grant proposals.

Dataset Information

Request a woman scientist: A database for diversifying the public face of science.

Publications

Request a woman scientist: A database for diversifying the public face of science.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets