Sex bias and omission in neuroscience research is influenced by research model and journal, but not reported NIH funding,Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › Front. Neuroendocrin. › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

Sex bias and omission in neuroscience research is influenced by research model and journal, but not reported NIH funding
Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology ( IF 6.5 ) Pub Date : 2020-04-01 , DOI: 10.1016/j.yfrne.2020.100835
Gabriella M Mamlouk ₁ , David M Dorris ₁ , Lily R Barrett ₂ , John Meitzen ₃

Affiliation

Neuroscience research has historically demonstrated sex bias that favors male over female research subjects, as well as sex omission, which is the lack of reporting sex. Here we analyzed the status of sex bias and omission in neuroscience research published across six different journals in 2017. Regarding sex omission, 16% of articles did not report sex. Regarding sex bias, 52% of neuroscience articles reported using both males and females, albeit only 15% of articles using both males and females reported assessing sex as an experimental variable. Overrepresentation of the sole use of males compared to females persisted (26% versus 5%, respectively). Sex bias and omission differed across research models, but not by reported NIH funding status. Sex omission differed across journals. These findings represent the latest information regarding the complex status of sex in neuroscience research and illustrate the continued need for thoughtful and informed action to enhance scientific discovery.

中文翻译：

神经科学研究中的性别偏见和遗漏受研究模型和期刊的影响，但未报告 NIH 资助

神经科学研究历来表明性别偏见偏向男性而不是女性研究对象，以及性别遗漏，即缺乏报告性别。在这里，我们分析了 2017 年在六种不同期刊上发表的神经科学研究中性别偏见和遗漏的状况。关于性别遗漏，16% 的文章没有报告性别。关于性别偏见，52% 的神经科学文章报告使用男性和女性，尽管只有 15% 使用男性和女性的文章报告将性别评估为实验变量。与女性相比，男性单独使用的比例仍然过高（分别为 26% 和 5%）。性别偏见和遗漏在不同的研究模型中有所不同，但与报告的 NIH 资助状况无关。不同期刊的性别遗漏有所不同。

更新日期：2020-04-01

点击分享查看原文

点击收藏

阅读更多本刊最新论文本刊介绍/投稿指南11