Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38750554›Full record

ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2024

Promoting equality, diversity and inclusion in research and funding: reflections from a digital manufacturing research network.

Oliver J Fisher, Debra Fearnshaw, Nicholas J Watson, Peter Green, Fiona Charnley, Duncan McFarlane, Sarah Sharples

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Oliver J FisherFood, Water, Waste Research Group, Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, UK.
Debra FearnshawHuman Factors Research Group, Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, UK. debra.fearnshaw@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6498-9888
Nicholas J WatsonSchool of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Peter GreenSchool of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Fiona CharnleyCentre for Circular Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Duncan McFarlaneInstitute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Sarah SharplesHuman Factors Research Group, Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/S036113/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEqual, diverse, and inclusive teams lead to higher productivity, creativity, and greater problem-solving ability resulting in more impactful research. However, there is a gap between equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) research and practices to create an inclusive research culture. Research networks are vital to the research ecosystem, creating valuable opportunities for researchers to develop their partnerships with both academics and industrialists, progress their careers, and enable new areas of scientific discovery. A feature of a network is the provision of funding to support feasibility studies - an opportunity to develop new concepts or ideas, as well as to 'fail fast' in a supportive environment. The work of networks can address inequalities through equitable allocation of funding and proactive consideration of inclusion in all of their activities.

methodsThis study proposes a strategy to embed EDI within research network activities and funding review processes. This paper evaluates 21 planned mitigations introduced to address known inequalities within research events and how funding is awarded. EDI data were collected from researchers engaging in a digital manufacturing network activities and funding calls to measure the impact of the proposed method.

resultsQuantitative analysis indicates that the network's approach was successful in creating a more ethnically diverse network, engaging with early career researchers, and supporting researchers with care responsibilities. However, more work is required to create a gender balance across the network activities and ensure the representation of academics who declare a disability. Preliminary findings suggest the network's anonymous funding review process has helped address inequalities in funding award rates for women and those with care responsibilities, more data are required to validate these observations and understand the impact of different interventions individually and in combination.

conclusionsIn summary, this study offers compelling evidence regarding the efficacy of a research network's approach in advancing EDI within research and funding. The network hopes that these findings will inform broader efforts to promote EDI in research and funding and that researchers, funders, and other stakeholders will be encouraged to adopt evidence-based strategies for advancing this important goal.

Indexed as

DiversityEDI interventionsEqualityFunding reviewingInclusionNetwork policyResearch integrity

Identifiers

PMID38750554
PMCPMC11097576

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.