Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39138061›Full record

ArticleIntegrative and comparative biology2024

A Practical Guide to Avoiding Biased Communication in Reproductive Biology.

Zoe Baker, Virginia Hayssen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Integrative and comparative biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Zoe BakerDepartment of Biological Sciences, Smith College, 44 College Lane, Northampton, MA 01063, USA.
Virginia HayssenDepartment of Biological Sciences, Smith College, 44 College Lane, Northampton, MA 01063, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4269-1906

Funding

Albert Francis Blakeslee FundNational Academy of SciencesSmith College
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When cultural biases pervade communication, whether visual or text-based, objectivity is impaired. Anthropocentrism (human-centered bias) and androcentrism (male-centered bias) in particular distort perspectives in mammalian reproductive biology. This paper provides a resource for professionals who understand how cultural biases can be reinforced with language, visuals, and conceptual framing. After brief explanations, we present neutral alternatives to biased terminology as well as ways to avoid bias in illustrations. Since this paper is animal-centric, we hope to inspire the creation of similar resources across a more diverse biota and, thus, move towards a more neutral perspective across reproductive biology.

Indexed as

CommunicationAnimalsFemaleHumansMaleReproductionTerminology as Topic

Identifiers

PMID39138061
PMCPMC11659675

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.