• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

元研究:在资助申请中为职业中断辩护,对澳大利亚研究人员的调查。

Meta-research: justifying career disruption in funding applications, a survey of Australian researchers.

机构信息

School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

出版信息

Elife. 2022 Apr 4;11:e76123. doi: 10.7554/eLife.76123.

DOI:10.7554/eLife.76123
PMID:35373737
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9038190/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

When researchers' careers are disrupted by life events - such as illness or childbirth - they often need to take extended time off. This creates a gap in their research output that can reduce their chances of winning funding. In Australia, applicants can disclose their career disruptions and peer reviewers are instructed to make appropriate adjustments. However, it is not clear if and how applicants use career disruption sections or how reviewers adjust and if they do it consistently.

METHODS

To examine career disruption, we used surveys of the Australian health and medical research community. We used both a random sample of Australian authors on and a non-random convenience sample.

RESULTS

Respondents expressed concerns that sharing information on career disruption would harm their chances of being funded, with 13% saying they have medical or social circumstances but would not include it in their application, with concerns about appearing 'weak'. Women were more reluctant to include disruption. There was inconsistency in how disruption was adjusted for, with less time given for those with depression compared with caring responsibilities, and less time given for those who did not provide medical details of their disruption.

CONCLUSIONS

The current system is likely not adequately adjusting for career disruption and this may help explain the ongoing funding gap for senior women in Australia.

FUNDING

National Health and Medical Research Council Senior Research Fellowship (Barnett).

摘要

背景

当研究人员的生活事件(如疾病或分娩)扰乱他们的职业生涯时,他们通常需要长时间休假。这会在他们的研究成果中造成空白,从而降低他们获得资金的机会。在澳大利亚,申请人可以披露他们的职业中断情况,同行评审员被指示进行适当的调整。然而,目前尚不清楚申请人是否以及如何使用职业中断部分,或者评审员如何进行调整,以及他们是否一致地进行调整。

方法

为了研究职业中断,我们对澳大利亚卫生和医疗研究界进行了调查。我们既使用了澳大利亚作者的随机样本,也使用了非随机方便样本。

结果

受访者表示担心分享职业中断信息会损害他们获得资金的机会,有 13%的人表示他们有医疗或社会状况,但不会在申请中包括这些信息,因为担心显得“脆弱”。女性更不愿意包括中断情况。对于中断情况的调整不一致,与照顾责任相比,患有抑郁症的人获得的时间较少,并且对于那些没有提供中断医疗细节的人给予的时间也较少。

结论

目前的系统可能没有充分调整职业中断情况,这可能有助于解释澳大利亚资深女性持续存在的资金差距。

资金

澳大利亚国家卫生和医学研究委员会资深研究奖学金(Barnett)。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/57da/9038190/cce8953c37b0/elife-76123-fig6.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/57da/9038190/49806da3486d/elife-76123-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/57da/9038190/2e9c60599543/elife-76123-fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/57da/9038190/f1582eb8d6ac/elife-76123-fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/57da/9038190/6eb701886667/elife-76123-fig4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/57da/9038190/885a16b66b65/elife-76123-fig5.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/57da/9038190/cce8953c37b0/elife-76123-fig6.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/57da/9038190/49806da3486d/elife-76123-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/57da/9038190/2e9c60599543/elife-76123-fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/57da/9038190/f1582eb8d6ac/elife-76123-fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/57da/9038190/6eb701886667/elife-76123-fig4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/57da/9038190/885a16b66b65/elife-76123-fig5.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/57da/9038190/cce8953c37b0/elife-76123-fig6.jpg

相似文献

1
Meta-research: justifying career disruption in funding applications, a survey of Australian researchers.元研究:在资助申请中为职业中断辩护,对澳大利亚研究人员的调查。
Elife. 2022 Apr 4;11:e76123. doi: 10.7554/eLife.76123.
2
The dementia research career pipeline: Gender disparities in publication authorships and grant funding outcomes at different career stages.痴呆症研究职业发展路径:不同职业阶段在论文发表署名及资助资金成果方面的性别差异
AMRC Open Res. 2022 Aug 10;4:18. doi: 10.12688/amrcopenres.13072.1. eCollection 2022.
3
Perceptions in health and medical research careers: the Australian Society for Medical Research Workforce Survey.健康与医学研究职业认知:澳大利亚医学研究协会劳动力调查
Med J Aust. 2008 May 5;188(9):520-4. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01766.x.
4
Downstream funding success of early career researchers for resubmitted versus new applications: A matched cohort.新申请与重新提交申请的早期职业研究人员的下游资金成功情况:匹配队列研究。
PLoS One. 2021 Nov 18;16(11):e0257559. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257559. eCollection 2021.
5
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
6
Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study.利用民主方式分配研究资金:一项观察性研究。
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2017 Sep 15;2:16. doi: 10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0. eCollection 2017.
7
What will it take? Pathways, time and funding: Australian medical students' perspective on clinician-scientist training.需要什么?途径、时间和资金:澳大利亚医学生对临床科学家培训的看法。
BMC Med Educ. 2017 Dec 8;17(1):242. doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-1081-2.
8
Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis.基于研究内容领域的加拿大卫生研究院资助和人员奖项资助率的性别差异:一项回顾性分析。
PLoS Med. 2019 Oct 15;16(10):e1002935. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002935. eCollection 2019 Oct.
9
A randomized trial of fellowships for early career researchers finds a high reliability in funding decisions.一项针对早期职业研究人员奖学金的随机试验发现,资金决策具有高度可靠性。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:147-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.04.010. Epub 2015 Apr 30.
10
Contemporary (post-Wills) survey of the views of Australian medical researchers: importance of funding, infrastructure and motivators for a research career.当代(威尔遗嘱之后)澳大利亚医学研究人员观点调查:资金、基础设施及研究职业激励因素的重要性
Med J Aust. 2005;183(11-12):606-11. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2005.tb00051.x.

引用本文的文献

1
The costs of competition in distributing scarce research funds.在分配稀缺研究资金方面竞争的成本。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024 Dec 10;121(50):e2407644121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2407644121. Epub 2024 Dec 2.
2
Gender inequities in medical research funding is driving an exodus of women from Australian STEMM academia.医学研究经费中的性别不平等现象导致澳大利亚 STEMM 学术界的女性大量流失。
Immunol Cell Biol. 2022 Oct;100(9):674-678. doi: 10.1111/imcb.12568. Epub 2022 Jul 5.

本文引用的文献

1
Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals.COVID-19 大流行第一波期间期刊投稿和同行评审中的性别差距。对 2329 种爱思唯尔期刊的研究。
PLoS One. 2021 Oct 20;16(10):e0257919. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257919. eCollection 2021.
2
COVID-19 gender policy changes support female scientists and improve research quality.新冠疫情相关性别政策的改变支持了女性科学家,并提高了研究质量。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Feb 9;118(6). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2023476118.
3
'The ethics approval took 20 months on a trial which was meant to help terminally ill cancer patients. In the end we had to send the funding back': a survey of views on human research ethics reviews.
“一项旨在帮助晚期癌症患者的试验,伦理审批耗时20个月。最后我们不得不把资金退回”:关于人体研究伦理审查的观点调查
J Med Ethics. 2021 Jan 11. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106785.
4
A survey of early-career researchers in Australia.澳大利亚青年研究人员调查。
Elife. 2021 Jan 11;10:e60613. doi: 10.7554/eLife.60613.
5
Why scientists with children who have disabilities need a different career trajectory.为什么有残疾子女的科学家需要一条不同的职业道路。
Nature. 2020 Jul;583(7817):646. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-02043-8.
6
Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in biomedical sciences faculties: cross sectional analysis of international sample of universities.生物医学科学教师晋升和终身教职的学术标准:对国际大学样本的横断面分析。
BMJ. 2020 Jun 25;369:m2081. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2081.
7
A Leak in the Academic Pipeline: Identity and Health Among Postdoctoral Women.学术人才培养渠道中的漏洞:博士后女性的身份与健康
Front Psychol. 2019 Jun 4;10:1297. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01297. eCollection 2019.
8
The impact of caring for children on women's research output: A retrospective cohort study.照顾孩子对女性科研产出的影响:一项回顾性队列研究。
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 21;14(3):e0214047. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214047. eCollection 2019.
9
The changing career trajectories of new parents in STEM.新父母在 STEM 领域职业轨迹的变化。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Mar 5;116(10):4182-4187. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1810862116. Epub 2019 Feb 19.
10
What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?关于健康科学领域的科研基金同行评审,我们了解些什么?
F1000Res. 2017 Aug 7;6:1335. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11917.2. eCollection 2017.