ReviewCambridge prisms. Coastal futures2026
Awards, keynotes and gender equity in coastal geoscience and engineering: A 50-year perspective.
Review in Cambridge prisms. Coastal futures, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Erratum: Awards, keynotes and gender equity in coastal geoscience and engineering: A 50-year perspective - CORRIGENDUM.Cambridge prisms. Coastal futures · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Awards and invited keynotes are critical markers of scholarly achievement that shape visibility, career advancement and retention in academia. Yet extensive evidence across science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine shows that women remain underrepresented among recipients of these honors. To evaluate equity within the coastal geosciences and engineering (CGE) community, we compiled the gender distribution of 1,138 awards and invited keynotes granted by professional societies and conferences relevant to CGE over the past 50 years. We additionally reviewed publicly available nomination and selection procedures to assess transparency and inclusivity in award processes. Overall, 65% of honors were presented to men, and 35% were awarded to women and gender-diverse recipients. While men received more than 94% of awards before 2000, female representation among honorees increased to an average of 42% since 2020, outpacing the growth of women in the global scientific workforce and in tenure-track positions in the physical sciences and engineering in the United States. Disparities persist, however, across organizations and career stages: late-career awards and invited keynotes remain disproportionately male-dominated. Most organizations publicly share eligibility criteria, but few provide information on committee composition, evaluation rubrics or conflict-of-interest policies. Our findings show substantial progress toward gender equity in CGE recognition, yet highlight continued gaps in senior-level honors and the transparency of selection procedures. We provide community-focused recommendations such as clearer nomination policies, actions to reduce implicit bias, improved record-keeping and expanded mid-career awards to support equitable recognition across career stages and to ensure that honors reflect the evolving diversity of the CGE workforce.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.