Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36382515›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2022

Sticky steps and the gender gap: how thoughtful practices could help keep caregivers in science.

Stephanie Meirmans, Dunja K Lamatsch, Maurine Neiman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Stephanie MeirmansDepartment of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6509-1212
Dunja K LamatschResearch Department for Limnology, University of Innsbruck, Mondsee, Mondseestraße 9, 5310 Mondsee, Austria.
Maurine NeimanDepartment of Biology and Department of Gender, Women's, and Sexuality Studies, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1543-8115

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many fewer women than men hold senior academic positions, a widely recognized and increasing problem. Our goal is to identify effective and feasible solutions. We begin by providing an in-depth assessment of the drivers of this gender inequity. In our synthesis of existing data, we provide many lines of evidence highlighting caregiving as a primary main factor. This is not a 'new' insight per se, but a point worth repeating that we back up by a strong and synthetic body of recent data. We also believe that our analysis provides a step forward in tackling a complex issue. We then develop a more detailed understanding of the challenges academic caregivers face and discuss whether and why it is important to keep caregivers in science. We find that the attrition due to caregiving should not be seen as a factor but rather as a process with multiple 'sticky steps' that eventually drive caregivers out of science-which, as we argue, is partly also good news. Indeed, it is here that we believe actions could be taken that would have a real impact: for example, one could effectively increase and expand upon current funding practices that focus on caregiver career advancement.

Indexed as

CaregiversFemaleHumansMaleSex Factorscaregivingfundinggenderleaky pipelineMatilda effect

Identifiers

PMID36382515
PMCPMC9667356

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.