Dataset Information

Male principal investigators (almost) don't publish with women in ecology and zoology.

ABSTRACT: Representation of women in science drops substantially at each career stage, from early student to senior investigator. Disparities in opportunities for women to contribute to research metrics, such as distinguished speaker events and authorship, have been reported in many fields in the U.S.A. and Europe. However, whether female representation in scientific contributions differs in other regions, such as Latin America, is not well understood. In this study, in order to determine whether female authorship is influenced by gender or institutional location of the last (senior) author or by subfield within ecology, we gathered author information from 6849 articles in ten ecological and zoological journals that publish research articles either in or out of Latin America. We found that female authorship has risen marginally since 2002 (27 to 31%), and varies among Latin American countries, but not between Latin America and other regions. Last author gender predicted female co-authorship across all journals and regions, as research groups led by women published with over 60% female co-authors whereas those led by men published with less than 20% female co-authors. Our findings suggest that implicit biases and stereotype threats that women face in male-led laboratories could be sources of female withdrawal and leaky pipelines in ecology and zoology. Accordingly, we encourage every PI to self-evaluate their lifetime percentage of female co-authors. Female role models and cultural shifts-especially by male senior authors-are crucial for female retention and unbiased participation in science.

SUBMITTER: Salerno PE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6583967 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective To examine the association between the presence of individual principal investigators' financial ties to the manufacturer of the study drug and the trial's outcomes after accounting for source of research funding.Design Cross sectional study of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Setting Studies published in "core clinical" journals, as identified by Medline, between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013.Participants Random sample of RCTs focused on drug efficacy.Main outcome measure Association between financial ties of principal investigators and study outcome.Results A total of 190 papers describing 195 studies met inclusion criteria. Financial ties between principal investigators and the pharmaceutical industry were present in 132 (67.7%) studies. Of 397 principal investigators, 231 (58%) had financial ties and 166 (42%) did not. Of all principal investigators, 156 (39%) reported advisor/consultancy payments, 81 (20%) reported speakers' fees, 81 (20%) reported unspecified financial ties, 52 (13%) reported honorariums, 52 (13%) reported employee relationships, 52 (13%) reported travel fees, 41 (10%) reported stock ownership, and 20 (5%) reported having a patent related to the study drug. The prevalence of financial ties of principal investigators was 76% (103/136) among positive studies and 49% (29/59) among negative studies. In unadjusted analyses, the presence of a financial tie was associated with a positive study outcome (odds ratio 3.23, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 6.1). In the primary multivariate analysis, a financial tie was significantly associated with positive RCT outcome after adjustment for the study funding source (odds ratio 3.57 (1.7 to 7.7). The secondary analysis controlled for additional RCT characteristics such as study phase, sample size, country of first authors, specialty, trial registration, study design, type of analysis, comparator, and outcome measure. These characteristics did not appreciably affect the relation between financial ties and study outcomes (odds ratio 3.37, 1.4 to 7.9).Conclusions Financial ties of principal investigators were independently associated with positive clinical trial results. These findings may be suggestive of bias in the evidence base.

Project description:BackgroundPsychosocial adversity disproportionately affects racial/ethnic and socioeconomic minorities in the USA, and therefore understanding the mechanisms through which psychosocial stress and resilience influence human health can provide meaningful insights into addressing US health disparities. Despite this promise, psychosocial factors are infrequently and unsystematically collected in the US prospective cohort studies.MethodsWe sought to understand prospective cohort principal investigators' (PIs') attitudes regarding the importance of psychosocial influences on disease aetiology, in order to identify barriers and opportunities for greater inclusion of these domains in high-quality epidemiological research. One-hour, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 PIs representing 24 US prospective cohort studies funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), collectively capturing health data on 1.25 of every 100 American adults. A hypothesis-free, grounded theory approach was used to analyse and interpret interview data.ResultsMost cohort PIs view psychosocial factors as an important research area to further our understanding of disease aetiology and agree that this research will be crucial for future public health innovations. Virtually all PIs emphasised that future psychosocial research will need to elucidate biological and behavioural mechanisms in order to be taken seriously by the epidemiological community more broadly. A lack of pertinent funding mechanisms and a lack of consensus on optimal scales and measures of psychosocial factors were identified as additional barriers to advancing psychosocial research.ConclusionsOur interviews emphasised the need for: (1) high-quality, longitudinal studies that investigate biological mechanisms and pathways through which psychosocial factors influence health, (2) effort among epidemiological cohorts to broaden and harmonise the measures they use across cohorts, to facilitate replication of results and (3) the need for targeted funding opportunities from NIH and other grant-making institutions to study these domains.

Dataset Information

Male principal investigators (almost) don't publish with women in ecology and zoology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets