ArticleImmunology and cell biology2022
Gender inequities in medical research funding is driving an exodus of women from Australian STEMM academia.
Article in Immunology and cell biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Representation: Tokenism and Epistemic Justice in Nursing Research.Nursing inquiry · 2026Article
- Gender disparities in securing national clinical research program (PHRC-N) funding in France: a retrospective analysis of the 2022 campaign.Health research policy and systems · 2026Observational
- Global perspectives to enhance strategies for advancing women in healthcare and STEMM leadership.Immunology and cell biology · 2025Review
- Article
- Reasons for gender inequities in invasive electrophysiology: a survey on family issues and career paths of female and male electrophysiology fellows in Germany.European heart journal open · 2024Article
- Effective analysis of job satisfaction among medical staff in Chinese public hospitals: a random forest model.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Influence of participant and reviewer characteristics in application scores for a hematology research training program.Blood advances · 2023Article
- What is Kindness in Science and why does it matter?Immunology and cell biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Universally, women are under-represented in senior academic leadership in science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine (STEMM). Successful funding outcomes are a critical point in career progression, to continue both a scientist's research but also for their retention within the STEMM workforce. A common explanation for the lower success rate of women in securing funding is that fewer women apply for funding. However, this does not adequately explain the gender inequities in funding outcomes, both in terms of fewer funded applications and also of reduced funding awarded per grant, resulting in less overall success. Gendered funding outcomes occur within academic institutions and peak funding bodies due to historical, systemic conscious and unconscious biases during peer review. As a cumulative bias over a woman's research career, this results in women being under-represented in STEMM and the loss of their contributions to medical research, reducing innovation through a lack of diverse workforces.
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.