Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37561706›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2023

Ten simple rules for a mom-friendly Academia.

Esther Sebastián-González, Eva Graciá, Alejandra Morán-Ordóñez, Irene Pérez-Ibarra, Ana Sanz-Aguilar, Mar Sobral

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Esther Sebastián-GonzálezDepartment of Ecology, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7229-1845
Eva GraciáDepartment of Applied Biology, Miguel Hernández University, Elche, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0790-163X
Alejandra Morán-OrdóñezCREAF, Facultad de ciencias y biociencias, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain.
Irene Pérez-IbarraDepartment of Agricultural Sciences and the Environment, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Ana Sanz-AguilarAnimal Demography and Ecology Unit, IMEDEA CSIC-UIB, Esporles, Spain.
Mar SobralFacultade de Bioloxía, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Women (and all gender-discriminated people) are underrepresented in science, especially in leadership positions and higher stages of the scientific career. One of the main causes of career abandonment by women is maternity, with many women leaving Academia after having their first child because of the career penalties associated with motherhood. Thus, more actions to help scientific moms to balance family and academic work are urgently needed to increase representation of women and other gender discriminated people in Academia. Besides mothers, these rules may also benefit other groups such as mothers-to-be, fathers, caregivers, and women in general. Increasing women representation in science, including mothers, is critical because equality is a fundamental right, and because more diverse working environments are more productive and get to more optimal solutions. Here, we describe 10 simple rules that can be adopted in Academia to halt the abandonment of scientific careers by women after motherhood. We strongly encourage their implementation to increase gender diversity and equality in science.

Indexed as

Career MobilityMothersChildFemaleHumansLeadershipPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID37561706
PMCPMC10414686

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.