Back

Positive outcomes of COVID-19 research-related gender policy changes

Witteman, H. O.; Haverfield, J.; Tannenbaum, C.

2020-10-26 scientific communication and education
10.1101/2020.10.26.355206 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed and exacerbated gender biases in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine. Accumulating evidence suggests that female scientists productivity dropped during the initial lockdown period. With more time being spent on caregiving responsibilities, women may be struggling to collaborate on grant applications and launch new experiments. Scientists with disabilities or who belong to Indigenous nations or communities of color may have less time to devote to research due to health, family, or community needs. Collateral damage in this situation, the appropriate integration of sex, gender, and other identity characteristics in research content may also suffer. Sex and gender are better attended to when female scientists form part of the research team. Research funding agencies have a role to play in mitigating these effects by putting in place gender equity policies that support all applicants and ensure research quality. Accordingly, a national health research funder implemented gender policy changes that included extending deadlines and factoring sex and gender into COVID-19 grant requirements. Following these changes, the funder received more applications from female scientists, awarded a greater proportion of grants to female compared to male scientists, and received and funded more grant applications that considered sex and gender in the content of COVID-19 research. Whether or not these strategies will be sufficient in the long-term to prevent widening of the gender gap in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine requires continued monitoring and oversight. Further work is urgently required to mitigate inequities associated with identity characteristics beyond gender.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 3%
29.1%
2
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 2%
15.1%
3
FASEB BioAdvances
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.1%
50% of probability mass above
4
Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.1%
5
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.8%
6
Journal of Cellular Physiology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
7
Biology of Sex Differences
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
8
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.8%
9
Environmental Science & Technology
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
10
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
11
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
12
Plant Direct
81 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
13
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
14
FACETS
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
15
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
16
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
17
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
18
Developmental Biology
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
19
Frontiers in Psychology
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
20
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
21
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.8%
22
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 74%
0.8%
23
Journal of Orthopaedic Research
19 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%