Sustainability through a gender lens: The extent to which research on UN Sustainable Development Goals includes sex and gender consideration.

Through efforts of the Gender Summits and UN Women, it is evident that all United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) targets must be viewed from a gender perspective to ensure that the outcomes benefit women and men equally. Our research focuses on the extent to which sex and gender topics are explicitly covered in research related to the SDGs. Expanding on previous studies, we have developed an approach to detect and visualize the volume and proportion of research publications that include explicit mention of sex and gender terms. The approach visualizes the topical coverage of the publications in the corpus of each SDG as a term map, and overlays that view with the proportion of the publications associated with sex and gender topics. We show that attention to sex and gender topics is uneven across the SDGs, and that even where overlap between an SDG and consideration of sex and gender is high, significant topical areas of relevance to the SDG have little explicit connection with sex and gender. This study lays the groundwork for the evidence-based development of a roadmap toward greater integration of sex and gender across all SDGs as well as monitoring integration progress over time.

Measuring motivation for team science collaboration in health teams.

The Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx) is a psychometric instrument that measures individual motivation for collaboration. It was validated using Rasch Analysis to create an indicator hierarchy on two dimensions: cooperation and collaboration. Six domains provide the basis for the tool to identify team member readiness for collaboration and a means by which to understand motivational strengths in a team based on degree of past self-reported experience. This brief report provides an overview of the development of the tool, how science teams may use it, and how to interpret results to advance team member readiness for greater collaboration. The paper also draws attention to ongoing work in progress to develop learning interventions to accompany the MATRICx instrument.

Global evidence of gender inequity in academic health research: a living scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to describe the global evidence of gender inequity among individuals with appointments at academic institutions that conduct health research, and examine how gender intersects with other social identities to influence outcomes. INTRODUCTION: The gender demographics of universities have shifted, yet the characteristics of those who lead academic health research institutions have not reflected this change. Synthesized evidence will guide decision-making and policy development to support the progress of gender and other under-represented social identities in academia. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider any quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods primary research that reports outcome data related to gender equity and other social identities among individuals affiliated with academic or research institutions that conduct health research, originating from any country. METHODS: The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the Cochrane Collaboration's guidance on living reviews will inform the review methods. Information sources will include electronic databases, unpublished literature sources, reference scanning of relevant systematic reviews, and sources provided by experts on the research team. Searches will be run regularly to monitor the development of new literature and determine when the review will be updated. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers working independently, and all discrepancies will be resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Data synthesis will summarize information using descriptive frequencies and simple thematic analysis. Results will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension to scoping reviews. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

Individual motivation and threat indicators of collaboration readiness in scientific knowledge producing teams: a scoping review and domain analysis.

This paper identifies a gap in the team science literature that considers intrapersonal indicators of collaboration as motivations and threats to participating in collaborative knowledge producing teams (KPTs). Through a scoping review process, over 150 resources were consulted to organize 6 domains of motivation and threat to collaboration in KPTs: Resource Acquisition, Advancing Science, Building Relationships, Knowledge Transfer, Recognition and Reward, and Maintenance of Beliefs. Findings show how domains vary in their presentation of depth and diversity of motivation and threat indicators as well as their relationship with each other within and across domains. The findings of 51 indicators resulting from the review provide a psychosocial framework for which to establish a hierarchy of collaborative reasoning for individual engagement in KPTs thus allowing for further research into the mechanism of collaborative engagement. The indicators serve as a preliminary step in establishing a protocol for testing of the psychometric properties of intrapersonal measures of collaboration readiness.

Pilot analysis of the Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx) using Rasch analysis.

Healthcare services and the production of healthcare knowledge are increasingly dependent on highly functioning, multidisciplinary teams, requiring greater awareness of individuals' readiness to collaborate in translational science teams. Yet, there is no comprehensive tool of individual motivations and threats to collaboration that can guide preparation of individuals for work on well-functioning teams. This prospective pilot study evaluated the preliminary psychometric properties of the Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx). We examined 55 items of the MATRICx in a sample of 125 faculty, students and researchers, using contemporary psychometric methods (Rasch analysis). We found that the motivator and threat items formed separate constructs relative to collaboration readiness. Further, respondents who identified themselves as inexperienced at working on collaborative projects defined the motivation construct differently from experienced respondents. These results are consistent with differences in strategic alliances described in the literature-for example, inexperienced respondents reflected features of cooperation and coordination, such as concern with sharing information and compatibility of goals. In contrast, the more experienced respondents were concerned with issues that reflected a collective purpose, more typical of collaborative alliances. While these different types of alliances are usually described as representing varying aspects along a continuum, our findings suggest that collaboration might be better thought of as a qualitatively different state than cooperation or coordination. These results need to be replicated in larger samples, but the findings have implications for the development and design of educational interventions that aim to ready scientists and clinicians for greater interdisciplinary work.

How Do I Review Thee? Let Me Count the Ways: A Comparison of Research Grant Proposal Review Criteria Across US Federal Funding Agencies.

While Elizabeth Barrett Browning counted 25 ways in which she loves her husband in her poem, "How Do I Love Thee? Let me Count the Ways," we identified only eight ways to evaluate the potential for success of a federal research grant proposal. This may be surprising, as it seems upon initial glance of the review criteria used by various federal funding agencies that each has its own distinct set of "rules" regarding the review of grant proposals for research and scholarship. Much of the grantsmanship process is dependent upon the review criteria, which represent the funders' desired impact of the research. But since most funders that offer research grants share the overarching goals of supporting research that (1) fits within its mission and (2) will bring a strong return on its financial investment, the review criteria used to evaluate research grant proposals are based on a similar set of fundamental questions. In this article, we compare the review criteria of 10 US federal agencies that support research through grant programs, and demonstrate that there are actually only a small and finite number of ways that a grant proposal can be evaluated. Though each funding agency may use slightly different wording, we found that the majority of the agencies' criteria address eight key questions. Within the highly competitive landscape of research grant funding, new researchers must find support for their research agendas and established investigators and research development offices must consider ways to diversify their funding portfolios, yet all may be discouraged by the apparent myriad of differences in review criteria used by various funding agencies. Guided by research administrators and research development professionals, recognizing that grant proposal review criteria are similar across funding agencies may help lower the barrier to applying for federal funding for new and early career researchers, or facilitate funding portfolio diversification for experienced researchers. Grantmakers are furthermore provided valuable guidance to develop and refine their own proposal review criteria.

Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science.

An increase in cross-disciplinary, collaborative team science initiatives over the last few decades has spurred interest by multiple stakeholder groups in empirical research on scientific teams, giving rise to an emergent field referred to as the science of team science (SciTS). This study employed a collaborative team science concept-mapping evaluation methodology to develop a comprehensive research agenda for the SciTS field. Its integrative mixed-methods approach combined group process with statistical analysis to derive a conceptual framework that identifies research areas of team science and their relative importance to the emerging SciTS field. The findings from this concept-mapping project constitute a lever for moving SciTS forward at theoretical, empirical, and translational levels.

A multi-level systems perspective for the science of team science.

This Commentary describes recent research progress and professional developments in the study of scientific teamwork, an area of inquiry termed the "science of team science" (SciTS, pronounced "sahyts"). It proposes a systems perspective that incorporates a mixed-methods approach to SciTS that is commensurate with the conceptual, methodological, and translational complexities addressed within the SciTS field. The theoretically grounded and practically useful framework is intended to integrate existing and future lines of SciTS research to facilitate the field's evolution as it addresses key challenges spanning macro, meso, and micro levels of analysis.

Advancing the science of team science.

The First Annual International Science of Team Science (SciTS) Conference was held in Chicago, IL April 22-24, 2010. This article presents a summary of the Conference proceedings.