guest ::
| Home > Publications database > Girls just wanna have funds: A new Transparent Reporting Scale for evaluating grant data reporting from funding agencies |
| Home > Publications database > Girls just wanna have funds: A new Transparent Reporting Scale for evaluating grant data reporting from funding agencies |
| Typ | Amount | VAT | Currency | Share | Status | Cost centre |
| Publication charges | 298.00 | 0.00 | EUR | 100.00 % | (Zahlung erfolgt) | E.40401.03 |
| Sum | 298.00 | 0.00 | EUR | |||
| Total | 298.00 |
| Journal Article | FZJ-2026-01749 |
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
2026
Frontiers Research Foundation
Lausanne
This record in other databases:
Please use a persistent id in citations: doi:10.3389/fncom.2026.1765249 doi:10.34734/FZJ-2026-01749
Abstract: AbstractIntroduction: 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 [p = 0.64, 95% CI (0.33, 0.83), p = 0.001] and gross domestic product of the countries where funders are based [p = 0.51, 95% CI (0.20, 0.74), p = 0.003], suggesting that collection and/or publication of funding data may reflect overall commitments to gender equity, and be limited due to resources. Data from only 29% of funders could be disaggregated for the neuroscience category specifically, indicating the difficulty in evaluating equity in our field.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.Keywords: DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion); STEM; gender equity; grants; neuroscience; open science; research funding; science policy.
; 
; 
; 
; Article Processing Charges ; BIOSIS Previews ; Biological Abstracts ; Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List ; DOAJ Seal ; Essential Science Indicators ; Fees ; IF < 5 ; JCR ; PubMed Central ; SCOPUS ; Science Citation Index Expanded ; Web of Science Core Collection
|
The record appears in these collections: |
PDF