Ten simple rules for women principal investigators during a pandemic

COVID-19 as a chronic stressor and the importance of individual identity: A data-driven look at academic productivity during the pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted personal and professional life. For academics, research, teaching, and service tasks were upended and we all had to navigate the altered landscape. However, some individuals faced a disproportionate burden, particularly academics with minoritized identities or those who were early career, were caregivers, or had intersecting identities. As comparative endocrinologists, we determine how aspects of individual and species-level variation influence response to, recovery from, and resilience in the face of stressors. Here, we flip that framework and apply an integrative biological lens to the impact of the COVID-19 chronic stressor on our endocrine community. We address how the pandemic altered impact factors of academia (e.g., scholarly products) and relatedly, how factors of impact (e.g., sex, gender, race, career stage, caregiver status, etc.) altered the way in which individuals could respond. We predict the pandemic will have long-term impacts on the population dynamics, composition, and landscape of our academic ecosystem. Impact factors of research, namely journal submissions, were altered by COVID-19, and women authors saw a big dip. We discuss this broadly and then report General and Comparative Endocrinology (GCE) manuscript submission and acceptance status by gender and geographic region from 2019 to 2023. We also summarize how the pandemic impacted individuals with different axes of identity, how academic institutions have responded, compile proposed solutions, and conclude with a discussion on what we can all do to (re)build the academy in an equitable way. At GCE, the first author positions had gender parity, but men outnumbered women at the corresponding author position. Region of manuscript origin mattered for submission and acceptance rates, and women authors from Asia and the Middle East were the most heavily impacted by the pandemic. The number of manuscripts submitted dropped after year 1 of the pandemic and has not yet recovered. Thus, COVID-19 was a chronic stressor for the GCE community.

Addressing leadership communication, parenting demands and mental health challenges: a mixed-methods case study of clinical and translational scientists during COVID-19

BACKGROUND

In March 2020, academic research centres in Colorado were closed to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Scientists and research staff were required to continue their work remotely with little time to prepare for the transition.

METHODS

This survey study used an explanatory sequential mixed-method design to explore clinical and translational researcher and staff experiences of the transition to remote work during the first 6 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants indicated the level of interference with their research and shared their experiences of remote work, how they were impacted, how they were adapting and coping, and any short-term or long-term concerns.

RESULTS

Most participants indicated that remote work interfered with their research to a moderate or great degree. Participant stories illuminated the differences of remote work prior to and during COVID-19. They described both challenges and silver linings. Three themes that highlight the challenges of transitioning to remote work during a pandemic were: (1) Leadership communication: 'Leadership needs to revisit their communication strategy'; (2) Parenting demands: Parents are 'multitasked to death' every day and (3) Mental health challenges: The COVID-19 experience is 'psychologically taxing'.

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings can be used to guide leaders in building community, resiliency and support productivity during current and future crises. Potential approaches to address these issues are proposed.

Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic and recent developments on the communication of clinical trials, publishing practices, and research integrity: in conversation with Dr. David Moher

BACKGROUND

The torrent of research during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed the persistent challenges with reporting trials, open science practices, and scholarship in academia. These real-world examples provide unique learning opportunities for research methodologists and clinical epidemiologists-in-training. Dr. David Moher, a recognized expert on the science of research reporting and one of the founders of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, was a guest speaker for the 2021 Hooker Distinguished Visiting Professor Lecture series at McMaster University and shared his insights about these issues.

MAIN TEXT

This paper covers a discussion on the influence of reporting guidelines on trials and issues with the use of CONSORT as a measure of quality. Dr. Moher also addresses how the overwhelming body of COVID-19 research reflects the "publish or perish" paradigm in academia and why improvement in the reporting of trials requires policy initiatives from research institutions and funding agencies. We also discuss the rise of publication bias and other questionable reporting practices. To combat this, Dr. Moher believes open science and training initiatives led by institutions can foster research integrity, including the trustworthiness of researchers, institutions, and journals, as well as counter threats posed by predatory journals. He highlights how metrics like journal impact factor and quantity of publications also harm research integrity. Dr. Moher also discussed the importance of meta-science, the study of how research is carried out, which can help to evaluate audit and feedback systems and their effect on open science practices.

CONCLUSION

Dr. Moher advocates for policy to further improve the reporting of trials and health research. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed how a lack of open science practices and flawed systems incentivizing researchers to publish can harm research integrity. There is a need for a culture shift in assessing careers and "productivity" in academia, and this requires collaborative top-down and bottom-up approaches.

Disproportionate Negative Career Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Female Pediatric Cardiologists in the Northeast United States

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a dramatic impact on practicing physicians, with effects in clinical practice, academic pursuits, research endeavors, and personal lives. Women in medicine have been uniquely impacted. We examined the impact of the pandemic on the careers of pediatric cardiologists in the Northeast with an anonymous online survey. Participants reported demographic data, information on work hours, administrative burden, career satisfaction, academic productivity, and burnout. We approached 490 cardiologists and received 127 completed surveys (response rate 26%; 49% female). Among all respondents, 72% reported increased burnout, 43% reported decreased career satisfaction, and 57% reported decreased academic productivity. In multivariable ordinal regression analysis, when compared to male physicians, females were 2.4 times more likely to report decreased overall career satisfaction (p = 0.027), 2.6 times more likely to report decreased academic productivity (p = 0.028), and 2.6 times more likely to report increased feelings of burnout "to a large degree" (p = 0.022). Among all respondents, decreased career satisfaction was independently associated with increased household responsibility (OR = 4.4, p = 0.001). Increased administrative burden was independently associated with decreased academic productivity (OR = 2.6, p = 0.038). Open-ended responses highlighted loss of community due to remote work and blurring of the boundaries between work and home. Conversely, respondents appreciated flexibility to work remotely. In conclusion, the majority of pediatric cardiologists in the Northeast experienced negative career impacts due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Important gender differences emerged, with female physicians disproportionately reporting increased burnout, decreased career satisfaction, and decreased academic productivity.

"This is an opportunity for leadership to lead, but leadership has disappeared": A qualitative case study of clinical and translational scientists during COVID-19

In March of 2020, academic research centers in Colorado were closed to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Scientists and research staff were required to continue their work remotely with little time to prepare for the transition. This survey study used an explanatory sequential mixed method design to explore clinical and translational researcher and staff experiences of the transition to remote work during the first six weeks of the pandemic. Participants indicated the level of interference with their research and shared their experiences of remote work, how they were impacted, how they were adapting and coping, and any short or long-term concerns. Most participants indicated that remote work interfered with their research to a moderate or great degree. Participant stories illuminated the differences of remote work prior to and during COVID-19. They described both challenges and silver linings. Here we describe three themes that highlight the challenges of transitioning to remote work during a pandemic: 1) Leadership: "This is an opportunity for leadership to lead, but leadership has disappeared"; 2) Parenting: Parents are "multitasked to death" every day, and 3) Mental health: The COVID-19 experience is "psychologically taxing";The study findings can be used to assist academic, hospital, department, and team leaders in building community, resiliency, and support productivity during current and future crises.