Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41766772›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2026

Girls just wanna have funds: a new Transparent Reporting Scale for evaluating grant data reporting from funding agencies.

Natasha Clarke, Abigail E Licata, Soumaiya Imarraine, Thuy Dao, Ginevra Sperandio, Ana Luísa Pinho, Valentina Borghesani, Paola Mengotti, Antonietta Gabriella Liuzzi, Doris Pischedda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2026. 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

10 authors.

Natasha ClarkeDepartment of Psychology, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Abigail E LicataDepartment of Psychology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Soumaiya ImarraineNeurosciences Paris Seine-Institut de Biologie Paris Seine (NPS-IBPS), INSERM, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.
Thuy DaoSchool of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia.
Ginevra SperandioInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany.
Ana Luísa PinhoDepartment of Psychology, Western Centre for Brain and Mind, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Valentina BorghesaniDepartment of Psychology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Paola MengottiCognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience & Medicine (INM-3), Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany.
Antonietta Gabriella LiuzziLaboratory for Cognitive Neurology, Department of Neurosciences, Leuven Brain Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Doris PischeddaDepartment of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Despite the increasing representation of women in scientific fields, disparities in research funding allocation remain. This inequity deprives talented women researchers of necessary resources, limiting the diversity of perspectives and ideas, and contributes to the "scissor-shaped curve" seen in neuroscience, where women leave before obtaining senior positions. Data transparency and comprehensive reporting of information on grant winners and applicants, as well as reporting of gender and other intersecting demographics and key metrics, are crucial to effectively evaluate funding equity. However, there is a lack of guidelines on which data funders should report. In this study, we aimed to investigate the transparency of neuroscience funders across Europe, focusing on the European Union, Schengen area, and the United Kingdom. Methods: To this end, we developed a Transparent Reporting Scale (TRS), composed of 15 items crucial to facilitate transparent and meaningful reporting, and searched for public data from funders in order to apply the scale and evaluate their transparency in data reporting. Across 32 countries and the European Union as a whole, we identified 39 funders, with 90% sharing publicly available data on funding results. Results: Using the TRS, five funders received a "gold" rating, eighteen a "silver" one, and thirteen a "bronze" rating. Scale scores were significantly correlated with the Gender Equality Index [ Discussion: We collated all available data into an Open Science Framework repository to enable data sharing and further analyses. The TRS can support funders in adopting transparent, standardized reporting practices in order to support evidence-based progress toward gender equity.

Indexed as

DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion)gender equitygrantsneuroscienceopen scienceresearch fundingscience policySTEM

Identifiers

PMID41766772
PMCPMC12946010

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.