The association between early career informal mentorship in academic collaborations and junior author performance

Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda

Science is among humanity's greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied empirically. We explore the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship (defined as actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality). Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. We discuss unknowns surrounding the consequences of censorship and provide recommendations for improving transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making to enable the exploration of these unknowns. The benefits of censorship may sometimes outweigh costs. However, until costs and benefits are examined empirically, scholars on opposing sides of ongoing debates are left to quarrel based on competing values, assumptions, and intuitions.

Mentoring Award: Importance, Availability and Association With Mentoring Outcomes

Intrinsic and extrinsic awards may motivate mentors and thus strengthen the organizational mentoring climate (OMC). Several institutions offer extrinsic awards for mentoring to recognize exceptional mentorship by individuals who support junior faculty in their career development. Mentees, peers, or institutions may nominate mentors for these awards. However, the faculty's perception of the importance of these awards and the association between their availability and mentoring outcomes remain unclear. We conducted secondary data analysis of a cross-sectional survey of 298 individuals (5%) from a pool of 6,152 faculty from the University of New Mexico (Main Campus and Health Sciences Center) and Arizona State University. The mentoring award's importance to faculty subgroups and the relationship of its perceived availability with providing/receiving and confidence in mentoring was determined. Participants completed the online OMC importance and availability draft scales, containing one item each on the award. Of all participants, 60.4% rated an award as very or somewhat important. Only 7% reported award availability (reaching 19% for ASU faculty). Women and Hispanic faculty rated the award as more important than their respective counterparts. Although availability was not associated with providing mentorship, faculty reporting unavailability were less likely to be receiving mentorship than others. Mean self-reported confidence in mentoring was higher among those reporting availability than in other groups. University faculty, particularly women and Hispanic, rate a mentoring award as important, yet few report their availability. Although availability is not associated with providing mentorship, it is associated with receiving mentorship and confidence in mentoring. The study's cross-sectional nature, low participation rate, and inability to independently confirm award availability limit its findings. Organizations need to establish and raise awareness of a faculty mentorship award as part of efforts to strengthen the OMC.

Gender bias and menstrual blood in stem cell research: A review of pubmed articles (2008–2020)

Despite proven scientific quality of menstrual blood mesenchymal cells, research and science output using those cells is still incipient, which suggests there is a resistance to the study of this type of cell by scientists, and a lack of attention to its potential for cell therapy, regenerative medicine and bioengineering. This study analyzes the literature about the menstrual blood mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (mbMSC) on the PubMed database between 2008–2020 and the social attention it received on Twitter. A comparative analysis showed that mbMSC accounts for a very small portion of mesenchymal cell research (0.25%). Most first authors are women (53.2%), whereas most last authors are men (63.74%), reinforcing an already known, and still significant, gender gap between last and corresponding authors. Menstrual blood tends to be less used in experiments and its scientific value tends to be underestimated, which brings gender bias to a technical and molecular level. Although women are more positive in the mbMSC debate on Twitter, communication efforts toward visibility and public interest in menstrual cells has room to grow.

Citation counts and journal impact factors do not capture some indicators of research quality in the behavioural and brain sciences

Citation data and journal impact factors are important components of faculty dossiers and figure prominently in both promotion decisions and assessments of a researcher's broader societal impact. Although these metrics play a large role in high-stakes decisions, the evidence is mixed about whether they are strongly correlated with indicators of research quality. We use data from a large-scale dataset comprising 45 144 journal articles with 667 208 statistical tests and data from 190 replication attempts to assess whether citation counts and impact factors predict three indicators of research quality: (i) the accuracy of statistical reporting, (ii) the evidential value of the reported data and (iii) the replicability of a given experimental result. Both citation counts and impact factors were weak and inconsistent predictors of research quality, so defined, and sometimes negatively related to quality. Our findings raise the possibility that citation data and impact factors may be of limited utility in evaluating scientists and their research. We discuss the implications of these findings in light of current incentive structures and discuss alternative approaches to evaluating research.

Towards a moralization of bibliometrics? A response to Kyle Siler

In a recent letter to QSS, Kyle Siler (2021), made harsh comments against the decision of the editors to publish a controversial paper signed by Alessandro Strumia (2021) about gender differences in high-energy physics. My aim here is to point to the elements in Siler’s letter that are typical of a new tendency to replace rational and technical arguments with a series of moral statements and ex cathedra affirmations that are not supported by cogent arguments. Such an approach can only be detrimental to rational debates within the bibliometric research community.

An Eye on Gender Equality: A Review of the Evolving Role and Representation of Women in Ophthalmology

PURPOSE

In recent decades, women have achieved greater representation in ophthalmology. Globally, women now constitute approximately 25%-30% of ophthalmologists and 35%-45% of trainees. Nevertheless, women remain under-represented in key areas, including positions of professional and academic leadership and ophthalmic surgical subspecialization. Furthermore, there is evidence that women in ophthalmology encounter more bias and discrimination across multiple domains than men, including a gender-pay gap that is wider than in many other surgical subspecialties. Women ophthalmologists and trainees report sharply differing training experiences from male peers, including fewer opportunities to operate, more bullying and harassment, less access to mentorship, and contrasting expectations around contributions to family life.

DESIGN

Perspective.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was undertaken to compile and review papers published with a focus on gender equity across ophthalmology, surgery, and medicine.

RESULTS

We identified 8 broad domains that were widely discussed: leadership, research and academics, income, surgical exposure and subspecialization, harassment, career satisfaction, mentorship, and family and marital differences. We have summarized the current research across each of these areas, and discussed possible solutions to reduce the inequities reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This review draws on current research published around representation and experiences of women in ophthalmology and suggests that there are opportunities to improve gender inequity.

Promoting the Sustainable Improvement of Educational Empirical Research Quality: What Kinds of Collaborative Production Relationships Make Sense?

With the transformation of the knowledge production model, the research system of educational research is becoming more extensive, and academic collaboration has become an important productive method of promoting the sustainable development of educational empirical research. Given this situation, what kinds of relationships will sustainably improve educational empirical research output quality? Taking the influence of educational empirical research article as an example, we selected 4610 empirical research articles in 15 education journals for analysis, published between the years of 2015 and 2020. In the sustainable development progress of educational empirical research, the optimal scale phenomenon has been verified in cooperative research. Identity collaboration, institutional collaboration, international collaboration, and discipline collaboration were all found to have a strongly significant influence on the sustainable improvement of educational empirical research output quality. Meanwhile, the output quality of educational empirical research is affected by the heterogeneity of the number of cooperators and cooperating identities. These findings suggest that the optimal proportion of teacher–student collaboration should be 2–3, and the optimal scale of colleague collaboration should be 3–4. Compared with teacher–student collaboration, colleague collaboration, including cross-organization and interdisciplinary collaboration, was more conductive to enhancing the sustainable improvement of educational empirical research outcome quality. According to these findings, it is reasonable to believe that, in the process of the sustainable development of educational empirical research, fine-guidance-style teacher–student collaboration and small-scale, cross-unit colleague collaboration should be promoted; meanwhile, strengthening the collaboration between normal universities, optimizing the quality of international collaboration, and promoting pedagogy intersection with other disciplines are also critical to promote the sustainable improvement of educational empirical research outcome quality.

The Gender Gap in Brazilian Entomology: an Analysis of the Academic Scenario

Although women are about half of world's population, they are underrepresented in many sectors including academia and the research scenario in general. Gender gap in Entomology has been pointed out in other publications; however, data for Brazil has never been demonstrated. Here we provide a diagnosis for the Brazilian Entomology scenario in order to contribute to propositions towards disentangling the gender gap in general. We analyzed scientometric data for Brazilian Entomology focusing on gender disparity and on personal perceptions related to the gender gap through an online questionnaire. We detected a pervasive gender bias in which the scissor-shaped curve is the most representative effect of it: women were the majority in lower degree stages but the minority in higher degree stages (permanent positions and positions of prestige and power). We also observed mentorship bias and discussed these results in light of intersectionality and the COVID-19 pandemic. Gender differences were perceived differently by the questionnaire respondents considering age, gender, and parenting. With this data and analyses, we have provided elements to stimulate and support change to a healthier and more equitable academic space.

The impact of gender in mentor-mentee success: Results from the Women's Dermatologic Society Mentorship Survey

Background

Mentorship can have a profound impact on the success and happiness of a mentee while also providing a sense of fulfillment and enrichment for the mentor. Both officially designated and spontaneously chosen mentors can be useful for protégés as they navigate through their training and professional work environment while striving to obtain the optimal work–life balance. Different genders can have variable experiences, in both their personal lives managing family obligations and their professional lives as dermatologists, which may affect the advice and guidance offered.

Objective

We studied the impact of gender on the mentor–mentee relationship for both official and spontaneous mentorships through a voluntary survey with a focus on reported outcomes from the perspective of the mentee.

Methods

Participants were selected through e-mail invitation via the Women's Dermatologic Society and program directors of the Association of Professors of Dermatology membership lists and given a link to the anonymous survey tool. The survey included 13 questions looking at official and spontaneous mentorships, the role of gender, and success in the dermatology field.

Results

Of the 288 respondents, 202 (69.9%) were women, 86 (29.8%) were men, and one identified as other. Of the survey participants, 81% had official mentors and 91% had spontaneous mentors, with the overlap indicating that there may have been a history of multiple mentors per individual. Mentoring had an overall significant positive impact, and 98.5% of those in the spontaneous-mentor group rated the mentor as helpful compared with 87.6% in the official-mentor cohort. For official mentorships, 60.1% involved gender-similar mentors, and of those who had officially designated mentors of any type, 55% indicated a preference for mentors of the same gender. When specifically looking at respondents who participated in same-gender official mentorships, 65.5% preferred this type; of those who had a gender-dissimilar equivalent, only 36.7% indicated a preference for gender similarity in a mentor. Comparably, 59% of protégés with spontaneous mentors had a gender-similar one, and of those who had spontaneous mentors of any type, 59.2% preferred gender similarity. When considering only those in gender-similar spontaneous mentorships, 74.5% favored a same-gender pairing compared with 32.9% of those in the gender-dissimilar group. For female–female official mentorships, 75% preferred a female mentor, similar to 80.5% of the spontaneous-mentor cohort.

Conclusion

Spontaneous mentors may provide a greater benefit than officially designated ones. For the majority of the categories, there was no statistical difference between female same-gender mentorships and gender-dissimilar relationships, which is in contrast with previously published literature. Overall, based on the feedback provided, the respondents believed that the quality of the relationship was the most important defining factor, but some noted that same-gender mentorships can provide additional benefit geared toward similar interests and experiences in life.

Survey Finds Gender Disparities Impact Both Women Mentors and Mentees in Gastroenterology

INTRODUCTION

Gastroenterologists at all levels of practice benefit from formal mentoring. Much of the current literature on mentoring in gastroenterology is based on expert opinion rather than data. In this study, we aimed to identify gender-related barriers to successful mentoring relationships from the mentor and mentee perspectives.

METHODS

A voluntary, web-based survey was distributed to physicians at 20 academic institutions across the United States. Overall, 796 gastroenterology fellows and faculty received the survey link, with 334 physicians responding to the survey (42% response rate), of whom 299 (90%; 129 women and 170 men) completed mentorship questions and were included in analysis.

RESULTS

Responses of women and men were compared. Compared with men, more women preferred a mentor of the same gender (38.6% women vs 4.2% men, P < 0.0001) but less often had one (45.5% vs 70.2%, P < 0.0001). Women also reported having more difficulty finding a mentor (44.4% vs 16.0%, P < 0.0001) and more often cited inability to identify a mentor of the same gender as a contributing factor (12.8% vs 0.9%, P = 0.0004). More women mentors felt comfortable advising women mentees about work-life balance (88.3% vs 63.8%, P = 0.0005). Nonetheless, fewer women considered themselves effective mentors (33.3% vs 52.6%, P = 0.03). More women reported feeling pressured to mentor because of their gender (39.5% vs 0.9% of men, P < 0.0001). Despite no gender differences, one-third of respondents reported negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their ability to mentor and be mentored.

DISCUSSION

Inequities exist in the experiences of women mentees and mentors in gastroenterology, which may affect career advancement and job satisfaction.

The Women's Leadership Gap in Diabetes: A Call for Equity and Excellence

Women are broadly underrepresented in scientific leadership positions and their accomplishments are not provided equal recognition compared with those of men, but the imbalance in the field of diabetes is unknown. Hence, we analyzed multiple aspects of historical and present-day female representation in the diabetes field.We quantified gender representation at annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) meetings; editorial board service positions for ADA and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) journals; principal investigators for ADA, JDRF, and National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases P30 grant funding; and ADA, JDRF, and EASD award recipients. There are many women in the field of diabetes: registration for the ADA Scientific Sessions has been 43% female since 2016, and for over five decades, women comprised 83% of ADA Presidents of Health Care and Education. Yet, only 9% of ADA Presidents of Medicine and Science have been women. Women were well represented on editorial boards for journals focused on diabetes education (Diabetes Spectrum, 89% female) and primary care (Clinical Diabetes, 49% female) but not for the more academically targeted Diabetes Care (34% female), Diabetes (21% female), and Diabetologia (30% female). Only one-third of ADA Pathway to Stop Diabetes and JDRF grants have been awarded to women, and females only lead 2 of 18 (11%) of the P30-supported Diabetes Research Centers. Finally, only 2-12% of major ADA, JDRF, and EASD awards were given to women, without significant change over time. Despite increasing recognition of gender imbalance in research and medicine, many disparities in the field of diabetes persist. We call for decreasing barriers for advancement of female investigators and creating environments that promote their retention and equitable recognition for their contributions to the field.

The Women's Leadership Gap in Diabetes: A Call for Equity and Excellence

OBJECTIVE

Women are broadly underrepresented in scientific leadership positions and their accomplishments are not provided equal recognition compared with those of men, but the imbalance in the field of diabetes is unknown. Hence, we analyzed multiple aspects of historical and present-day female representation in the diabetes field.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We quantified gender representation at annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) meetings; editorial board service positions for ADA and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) journals; principal investigators for ADA, JDRF, and National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases P30 grant funding; and ADA, JDRF, and EASD award recipients.

RESULTS

There are many women in the field of diabetes: registration for the ADA Scientific Sessions has been 43% female since 2016, and for over five decades, women comprised 83% of ADA Presidents of Health Care and Education. Yet, only 9% of ADA Presidents of Medicine and Science have been women. Women were well represented on editorial boards for journals focused on diabetes education (Diabetes Spectrum, 89% female) and primary care (Clinical Diabetes, 49% female) but not for the more academically targeted Diabetes Care (34% female), Diabetes (21% female), and Diabetologia (30% female). Only one-third of ADA Pathway to Stop Diabetes and JDRF grants have been awarded to women, and females only lead 2 of 18 (11%) of the P30-supported Diabetes Research Centers. Finally, only 2-12% of major ADA, JDRF, and EASD awards were given to women, without significant change over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing recognition of gender imbalance in research and medicine, many disparities in the field of diabetes persist. We call for decreasing barriers for advancement of female investigators and creating environments that promote their retention and equitable recognition for their contributions to the field.

The red lipstick mentor

Prof. Lesley Rees belongs to the women who changed science and has inspired so many young researchers, including myself. These inspiring women deserve more credit and recognition than they get because they serve as a role model for us. Indeed, despite advances towards women empowerment, progress has been slow, and discrepancy persists around the world. Unfortunately, science is not immune to such inequalities, and the voices of female leaders are important in cracking this gender filter. Women represent only a third of researchers globally and often face gender-based discrimination and lack equal opportunities. In this letter, I would like to highlight three astonishing researchers in an effort to underscore the importance of existing women mentorship, while transmitting the pride of the red lipstick rather than the victimization of the red cheeks.

Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science

Success and impact metrics in science are based on a system that perpetuates sexist and racist “rewards” by prioritizing citations and impact factors. These metrics are flawed and biased against already marginalized groups and fail to accurately capture the breadth of individuals’ meaningful scientific impacts. We advocate shifting this outdated value system to advance science through principles of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. We outline pathways for a paradigm shift in scientific values based on multidimensional mentorship and promoting mentee well-being. These actions will require collective efforts supported by academic leaders and administrators to drive essential systemic change.

This Essay argues that success and impact metrics in science are based on a system that perpetuates sexist and racist ‘rewards’ by prioritizing citations and impact factors; the authors advocate shifting this outdated value system to advance science through principles of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Sousa S, Diele-Viegas LM. Why we shouldn’t blame women for gender disparity in academia: perspectives of women in zoology

The following letter, from a network of women zoologists, is a reply to the article of AlShebli et al. (2020), which suggests that female protégés reap more benefits when mentored by men and concludes that female mentors hinder the success of their female protégés and the quality of their impact. This contribution has two parts. First, we highlight the most relevant methodological flaws which, in our opinion, may have impacted the conclusions of AlShebli et al. (2020). Second, we discuss issues pertaining to women in science, bring a perspective of Women in Zoology and discuss how current diversity policies are positively changing our field.