ArticleBioscience2020
Gender Differences in Grant Submissions across Science and Engineering Fields at the NSF.
Article in Bioscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration.Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society · 2023Pooled it
- Lottery before peer review is associated with increased female representation and reduced estimated economic cost in a German funding line.Nature communications · 2025Article
- The impact of sex/gender-specific funding and editorial policies on biomedical research outcomes: a cross-national analysis (2000-2021).Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Social Justice, Community Engagement, and Undergraduate STEM Education: Participatory Science as a Teaching Tool.CBE life sciences education · 2024Article
- Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Research integrity and peer review · 2023Review
- Sticky steps and the gender gap: how thoughtful practices could help keep caregivers in science.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Article
- U.S. Women Faculty in the Social Sciences Also Face Gender Inequalities.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Review
- Demography, education, and research trends in the interdisciplinary field of disease ecology.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Review
- Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the productivity of academics who mother.Gender, work, and organization · 2021Article
- Rebuild the Academy: Supporting academic mothers during COVID-19 and beyond.PLoS biology · 2021Article
- Diversity and Professional Advancement in Medical Physics.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There has been great growth in women's participation in the US academic doctoral workforce, but underrepresentation remains in all science and engineering fields, especially at high academic ranks. We obtained estimates of the numbers of professorial women and men in fields likely to seek funding from the National Science Foundation and aligned those numbers with each of six research directorates to investigate temporal trends in submission patterns. We found that women are as likely to be funded as men, but the percentage of women submitting proposals was less than expected in every field but engineering. Women are as likely as men to be employed at the most research active institutions, but women are less likely than men to self-report research as their primary work activity in almost all fields but engineering. This work imbalance ultimately limits the diversity of basic science research ideas in science and engineering.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.