Perceived Barriers to Serving on National Institutes of Health Scientific Review Groups Experienced by Black and African American Scientists.

Importance: African American and Black scientists are awarded disproportionately fewer National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants than White scientists. Increasing Black representation on NIH scientific review groups (SRGs) likely will contribute to increased equity in funding rates because research topics of Black and African American scientists' submitted applications will be more highly valued; however, Black and African American scientists often perceive barriers that prevent them from serving on NIH SRGs. Objective: To examine perceived barriers that prevent Black and African American scientists from serving on NIH SRGs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used a mixed methods online approach with a convenience sample of Black and African American scientists to identify barriers to NIH grant review participation. Eligible participants were recruited online from professional organizations with primarily Black and African American membership. From February through April 2021, participants were asked to identify barriers to serving on NIH SRGs using concept mapping. Participants brainstormed statements describing barriers to serving on NIH SRGs, sorted statements into content themes, and rated statements on how true they were. Multidimensional scaling and a hierarchical cluster analysis identified content themes. Data analysis was conducted in May and June of 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported barriers to serving on an NIH SRG among Black and African American scientists. Results: A total of 52 scientists participated in both phases of the study (mean [SD] age, 42.3 [8.2] years; 46 women [88.5%]). Participants provided 68 unique statements that were organized into 9 thematic clusters describing barriers to serving on NIH SRGs. Themes included structural racism, diversity not valued, toxic environment, review workload demand, lack of reward, negative affect about the review process, competing demands at home institution, lack of opportunity, and perceptions of being unqualified. Conclusions and Relevance: Black and African American scientists reported many barriers to serving on NIH SRGs that are unique to Black and African American scientists, as well as barriers that transcend race but are exacerbated by structural racism. This study provides NIH with concrete opportunities to address realized barriers to increase inclusion of Black and African American scientists on NIH SRGs, fund more Black and African American scientists, and ultimately reduce health inequities in the US.

COVID-19 threatens faculty diversity: postdoctoral scholars call for action.

Despite substantial investment and effort by federal agencies and institutions to improve the diversity of the professoriate, progress is excruciatingly slow. One program that aims to enhance faculty diversity is the Institutional Research and Academic Career Development Award (IRACDA) funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of General Medical Sciences. IRACDA supports the training of a diverse cohort of postdoctoral scholars who will seek academic research and teaching careers. The San Diego IRACDA program has trained 109 postdoctoral scholars since its inception in 2003; 59% are women and 63% are underrepresented (UR) Black/African-American, Latinx/Mexican-American, and Indigenous scientists. Sixty-four percent obtained tenure-track faculty positions, including a substantial 32% at research-intensive institutions. However, the COVID-19 pandemic crisis threatens to upend IRACDA efforts to improve faculty diversity, and academia is at risk of losing a generation of diverse, talented scholars. Here, a group of San Diego IRACDA postdoctoral scholars reflects on these issues and discusses recommendations to enhance the retention of UR scientists to avoid a "lost generation" of promising UR faculty scholars.

Are we there yet? A systematic literature review of Open Educational Resources in Africa: A combined content and bibliometric analysis.

Although several studies have been conducted to summarize the progress of open educational resources (OER) in specific regions, only a limited number of studies summarize OER in Africa. Therefore, this paper presents a systematic literature review to explore trends, themes, and patterns in this emerging area of study, using content and bibliometric analysis. Findings indicated three major strands of OER research in Africa: (1) OER adoption is only limited to specific African countries, calling for more research and collaboration between African countries in this field to ensure educational equity; (2) most of the OER initiatives in Africa have focused on the creation process and neglected other important perspectives, such as dissemination and open educational practices (OEP) using OER; and (3) on top of the typical challenges for OER adoption (e.g., infrastructure), other personal challenges were identified within the African context, including culture, language, and personality. The findings of this study suggest that more initiatives and cross-collaborations with African and non-African countries in the field of OER are needed to facilitate OER adoption in the region. Additionally, it is suggested that researchers and practitioners should consider individual differences, such as language, personality and culture, when promoting and designing OER for different African countries. Finally, the findings can promote social justice by providing insights and future research paths that different stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, educators, practitioners, etc.) should focus on to promote OER in Africa.

The Minority Scientists' Experience: Challenging and Overcoming Barriers to Enhancing Diversity and Career Advancement.

Minority groups face barriers in accessing quality health care, professional advancement, and representation in immunology research efforts as a result of institutional racism that if unaddressed can perpetuate a lack of diversity. In 2021, the AAI Minority Affairs Committee convened a cross section of academic and industry scientists from underrepresented groups at various stages of their professions to discuss how best to address the toll racism takes on study design and scientific careers. Panelists drew directly from their own experiences as scientists to share perspectives and strategies for countering a lack of representation in clinical research, responding to microaggressions, navigating academic advancement, and providing effective mentorship. The session reinforced the need for minority scientists to take an active role in advocating for diversity, engaging mentors, and taking responsibility to face rather than avoid institutional obstacles. Overall, increased dialogue and institutional awareness of the experience of scientists from underrepresented groups in research remain the best tools to ensure a health equity mindset and advancement of their careers.

Lessons from an initiative to address gender bias.

How a letter addressing the lack of women invited to speak at a conference in brain stimulation encouraged researchers to take action.

An experimental test of the effects of redacting grant applicant identifiers on peer review outcomes.

Background: Blinding reviewers to applicant identity has been proposed to reduce bias in peer review. Methods: This experimental test used 1200 NIH grant applications, 400 from Black investigators, 400 matched applications from White investigators, and 400 randomly selected applications from White investigators. Applications were reviewed by mail in standard and redacted formats. Results: Redaction reduced, but did not eliminate, reviewers' ability to correctly guess features of identity. The primary, preregistered analysis hypothesized a differential effect of redaction according to investigator race in the matched applications. A set of secondary analyses (not preregistered) used the randomly selected applications from White scientists and tested the same interaction. Both analyses revealed similar effects: Standard format applications from White investigators scored better than those from Black investigators. Redaction cut the size of the difference by about half (e.g. from a Cohen's d of 0.20-0.10 in matched applications); redaction caused applications from White scientists to score worse but had no effect on scores for Black applications. Conclusions: Grant-writing considerations and halo effects are discussed as competing explanations for this pattern. The findings support further evaluation of peer review models that diminish the influence of applicant identity. Funding: Funding was provided by the NIH.

Equity in clinical trials for HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis: A systematic review of global representation and inclusion of patients and researchers.

BACKGROUND: It is essential that clinical trial participants are representative of the population under investigation. Using HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis (CM) as a case study, we conducted a systematic review of clinical trials to determine how inclusive and representative they were both in terms of the affected population and the involvement of local investigators. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, Africa-Wide, CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science. Data were extracted for 5 domains: study location and design, screening, participants, researchers, and funders. Data were summarised and compared over 3 time periods: pre-antiretroviral therapy (ART) (pre-2000), early ART (2000 to 2009), and established ART (post-2010) using chi-squared and chi-squared for trend. Comparisons were made with global disease burden estimates and a composite reference derived from observational studies. RESULTS: Thirty-nine trials published between 1990 and 2019 were included. Earlier studies were predominantly conducted in high-income countries (HICs) and recent studies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Most recent studies occurred in high CM incidence countries, but some highly affected countries have not hosted trials. The sex and ART status of participants matched those of the general CM population. Patients with reduced consciousness and those suffering a CM relapse were underrepresented. Authorship had poor representation of women (29% of all authors), particularly as first and final authors. Compared to trials conducted in HICs, trials conducted in LMICs were more likely to include female authors (32% versus 20% p = 0.014) but less likely to have authors resident in (75% versus 100%, p < 0.001) or nationals (61% versus 93%, p < 0.001) of the trial location. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a marked shift in CM trials over the course of the HIV epidemic. Trials are primarily performed in locations and populations that reflect the burden of disease, but severe and relapse cases are underrepresented. Most CM trials now take place in LMICs, but the research is primarily funded and led by individuals and institutions from HICs.

Transition to Independent Research Funding Among National Institutes of Health K Grant Awardees at Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports mentored research career development awards (K awards) to increase the pipeline of independently funded scientists. This study analyzed the portfolio of K grants that were awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments and characterized the factors that were associated with successful transition to independent NIH research funding, including R01 grants. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of K-award recipients in orthopaedic surgery departments in the United States from 1996 to 2018. A query was performed on the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) database for NIH grants that were awarded to departments of orthopaedic surgery, general surgery, otolaryngology, obstetrics and gynecology, ophthalmology, and urology. Rates of transition to independent research funding were compared by specialty for K grants that were awarded from 1996 to 2011. The percentage of faculty with mentored research career development awards and the return on investment (ROI) were calculated. An internet and Scopus (Elsevier) database search determined the investigator characteristics. The factors that were associated with successful transition to independent funding were determined via chi-square and unpaired t tests. RESULTS: Sixty K-award recipients were identified in orthopaedic surgery departments. Most were men (77%) and research scientists (53%). Fifty percent of the K-award recipients transitioned to independent research funding. Research scientists had the highest rate of transition to independent research funding (71%, p = 0.016) relative to clinicians (0%) and orthopaedic surgeons (40%). Higher levels of publication productivity were associated with successful transition to independent research funding. Similar rates of transition to independent research funding existed among surgical specialties (p = 0.107). Orthopaedic surgery had the lowest percentage of faculty with a K award (1.4%) but had the highest ROI (198%) of these awards. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopaedic surgery had similar rates of transition to independent research funding when compared with other surgical specialties but had a lower prevalence of K awards among faculty. Orthopaedic surgeon-scientists have lower rates of transition to independent research funding when compared with their research-scientist colleagues. These findings highlight a need for greater support to foster the pipeline of future NIH-funded orthopaedic investigators. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As the largest support of biomedical research in the U.S., the NIH is an important stakeholder in orthopaedic innovations and discoveries. This study highlights barriers in the procurement of NIH funding across surgical specialties and affirms the need for greater resources toward supporting NIH funding in orthopaedic surgery.

Rebuild the Academy: Supporting academic mothers during COVID-19 and beyond.

The issues facing academic mothers have been discussed for decades. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is further exposing these inequalities as womxn scientists who are parenting while also engaging in a combination of academic related duties are falling behind. These inequities can be solved by investing strategically in solutions. Here we describe strategies that would ensure a more equitable academy for working mothers now and in the future. While the data are clear that mothers are being disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, many groups could benefit from these strategies. Rather than rebuilding what we once knew, let us be the architects of a new world.

COVID-19 gender policy changes support female scientists and improve research quality.

With more time being spent on caregiving responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, female scientists' productivity dropped. When female scientists conduct research, identity factors are better incorporated in research content. In order to mitigate damage to the research enterprise, funding agencies can play a role by putting in place gender equity policies that support all applicants and ensure research quality. A national health research funder implemented gender policy changes that included extending deadlines and factoring sex and gender into COVID-19 grant requirements. Following these changes, the funder received more applications from female scientists, awarded a greater proportion of grants to female compared to male scientists, and received and funded more grant applications that considered sex and gender in the content of COVID-19 research. Further work is urgently required to address inequities associated with identity characteristics beyond gender.

The impact of gender on scientific writing: An observational study of grant proposals.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether there are differences in the language used in grant applications submitted to a Southern Brazil Research Support Foundation (FAPERGS) according to the gender, career stage, and the number of publications of applicants. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This observational study also evaluated the relationship between gender, career stage, curriculum, and writing characteristics. Summaries of all research proposals in the biomedical field of FAPERGS during the years of 2013 and 2014 were evaluated according to six language patterns (Positive emotions, Negative emotions, Analytic thinking, Clout, Authenticity, and Emotional tone) defined by the LIWC software. Applicant's gender, career stage, and the number of publications were also collected. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-four (344) grant proposals met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. No statistical differences were observed in the language pattern used by different gender applicants. In the language used by successful and unsuccessful applicants, we only found a small difference for clout (score 54.5 for not funded and 56.5 for funded grants). However, the principal investigators of successful applications had a significantly higher number of papers published (mean number of papers: 104 versus 58.5). CONCLUSIONS: Gender bias appears to be a more complex problem than just the type of language used; the way society is organized causes several gender biases that may be reflected throughout the women's career.