Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31256875›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2019

Public Discussion Affects Question Asking at Academic Conferences.

Natalie Telis, Emily C Glassberg, Jonathan K Pritchard, Chris Gunter

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of human genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Natalie TelisBiomedical Informatics Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. Electronic address: natalie.telis@gmail.com.
Emily C GlassbergDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Jonathan K PritchardDepartment of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Janelia Farms, Ashburn, VA 20815, USA.
Chris GunterDepartment of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA; Department of Human Genetics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA; Marcus Autism Center, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA.
Stanford University · USEmory University · USHoward Hughes Medical Institute · US

Funding

POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING IN MEDICAL INFORMATION SCIENCEST15LM007033 · NLM · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SYLVIA KATINA PLEVRITIS · 1985 to 2026
$25.5M
The ontogeny of social vocal engagement and its derailment in autismP50MH100029 · NIMH · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI RAMSAY, GORDON JAMES · 2012 to 2021
$20.1M
Integration of genetic association mapping and functional data to elucidate genetic mechanisms of diseaseR01HG008140 · NHGRI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI JONATHAN K PRITCHARD · 2016 to 2026
$7.3M
Decoding the regulatory architecture of the human genome across cell types, individuals and diseaseU01HG009431 · NHGRI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI PRITCHARD, JONATHAN K · 2017 to 2021
$3.5M
Genetic and epigenetic controls of gene regulationU01HG007036 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI PRITCHARD, JONATHAN K · 2012 to 2015
$1.4M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG008140NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG007036NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG009431NIMH NIH HHS P50 MH100029NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Women are under-represented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Despite the recent emphasis on diversity in STEM, our understanding of what drives differences between women and men scientists remains limited. This, in turn, limits our ability to intervene to level the playing field. To quantify the representation and participation of women and men at academic meetings in human genetics, we developed high-throughput and crowd-sourced approaches focused on question-asking behavior. Question asking is one voluntary and self-initiated scientific activity we can measure. Here we report that women ask fewer questions than expected regardless of their representation in talk audiences. We present evidence that external barriers affect the representation of women in STEM. However, differences in question-asking behavior suggest that internal factors also impact women's participation. We then examine the effects of specific interventions and show that wide public discussion of the relative under-participation of women in question-and-answer sessions alters question-asking behavior. We suggest that engaging the community in such projects promotes visibility of diversity issues at academic meetings and allows for efficient data collection that can be used to further explore and understand differences in conference participation.

Indexed as

CommunicationPublic OpinionCongresses as TopicFemaleHumansMaleNatural Science DisciplinesResearch PersonnelSex FactorsSocieties, Scientificbioinformaticsculturegendergender studiesgeneticsquantitative social sciencessciencescience and society

Identifiers

PMID31256875
PMCPMC6612753
OpenAlexW2954806872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.