ArticleNature ecology & evolution2023
Little transparency and equity in scientific awards for early- and mid-career researchers in ecology and evolution.
Article in Nature ecology & evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structural barriers drive gender inequality across academic careers in Brazilian ecology.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Awards, keynotes and gender equity in coastal geoscience and engineering: A 50-year perspective.Cambridge prisms. Coastal futures · 2026Review
- The Gender Award Gap in German medical societies 2000-2023: the Fritz-Külz-Award as an example.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Article
- How Can We Make Scientific Events More Inclusive? Insights From Q&A Sessions and Surveys From an International Conference.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Priced out of belonging? Insufficient concessions on membership fees across international societies in ecology and evolution.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- "Best Paper" awards lack transparency, inclusivity, and support for Open Science.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- A narrative on diversity, equity, and inclusion in surgery: insights from the European Society of Coloproctology and identification of points for action.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- Recognizing Excellence in Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Epidemiology: The National MCH Epidemiology Awards.Maternal and child health journal · 2024Article
- Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) promotes more granularity and accountability for author contributions.Nature communications · 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
7 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific awards can shape scientific careers, helping to secure jobs and grants, but can also contribute to the lack of diversity at senior levels and in the elite networks of scientists. To assess the status quo and historical trends, we evaluated 'best researcher' awards and 'best paper' early- and mid-career awards from broad-scope international journals and societies in ecology and evolution. Specifically, we collated information on eligibility rules, assessment criteria and potential gender bias. Our results reveal that, overall, few awards foster equitable access and assessment. Although many awards now explicitly allow extensions of the eligibility period for substantial career interruptions, there is a general lack of transparency in terms of assessment and consideration of other differences in access to opportunities and resources among junior researchers. Strikingly, open science practices were mentioned and valued in only one award. By highlighting instances of desirable award characteristics, we hope this work will nudge award committees to shift from simple but non-equitable award policies and practices towards strategies enhancing inclusivity and diversity. Such a shift would benefit not only those at the early- and mid-career stages but the whole research community. It is also an untapped opportunity to reward open science practices, promoting transparent and robust science.
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.