Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41950236›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2026

Ten simple rules for postdoctoral mums to stay competitive in academia.

Belén Fadrique, Selene Báez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 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

2 authors.

Belén FadriqueSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6919-9156
Selene BáezDepartamento de Biología, Escuela Politécnica Nacional del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In academia, the intersection of the postdoctoral stage, usually highly unstable and decisive to secure a permanent position, and motherhood, is the most prominent culprit of the well-known problem of the decreasing number of female researchers in senior academic positions. The loss of postdoctoral women from the academic path represents an unsustainable loss of talent, leading to unbalanced academic institutions where this phenomenon eventually gets perpetuated. The motherhood challenges for postdoctoral women begin from the moment they plan on getting pregnant and continue well after reincorporation to work after maternity leave. Here, we provide 10 actionable rules for these postdoctoral women approaching motherhood to increase their chances of remaining in the academic career. These rules will help postdoctoral women prepare for the challenge of becoming a mother while working towards their long-term academic goals, and establish a successful relationship with their supervisors and collaborators under the new circumstances. These rules should be complemented by the general effort from colleagues, supervisors, institutions, and academia as a whole, to create a more supportive working environment. It is in the utmost interest of the academic community to improve the retention of postdoctoral mums and promote their progression to more senior positions.

Indexed as

Postdoctoral TrainingResearch PersonnelAcademiaCareer ChoiceCareer MobilityFemaleHumans

Identifiers

PMID41950236
PMCPMC13061194

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.