Little transparency and equity in scientific awards for early- and mid-career researchers in ecology and evolution

"Best Paper" awards lack transparency, inclusivity, and support for Open Science

Awards can propel academic careers. They also reflect the culture and values of the scientific community. But do awards incentivize greater transparency, inclusivity, and openness in science? Our cross-disciplinary survey of 222 awards for the "best" journal articles across all 27 SCImago subject areas revealed that journals and learned societies administering such awards generally publish little detail on their procedures and criteria. Award descriptions were brief, rarely including contact details or information on the nominations pool. Nominations of underrepresented groups were not explicitly encouraged, and concepts that align with Open Science were almost absent from the assessment criteria. At the same time, 10% of awards, especially the recently established ones, tended to use article-level impact metrics. USA-affiliated researchers dominated the winner's pool (48%), while researchers from the Global South were uncommon (11%). Sixty-one percent of individual winners were men. Overall, Best Paper awards miss the global calls for greater transparency and equitable access to academic recognition. We provide concrete and implementable recommendations for scientific awards to improve the scientific recognition system and incentives for better scientific practice.

A narrative on diversity, equity, and inclusion in surgery: insights from the European Society of Coloproctology and identification of points for action

The focus of the 2022 European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) annual campaign was diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in surgery. The ESCP "Operation Equal Access" campaign sought to interview key-opinion leaders and trainees, to raise awareness on inequalities, inform the community of the status of the topic, and to identify future areas for improvement. The ESCP Social Media Working Group interviewed experts who have made significant contributions to DEI in colorectal surgery and were acknowledged opinion leaders in the field. The interviews focused on their career, professional life, experiences, and opportunities during their training, and their views on DEI in colorectal surgery. DEI principles, education, and values need further promotion to reduce and address bias within the profession and overall improve the experience of minority community including health professionals and patients. International Societies are working to facilitate training opportunities and overcome DEI, and networking have contributed to that. Collaborations between societies will be pivotal to contribute to offering research and leadership opportunities equally. Access to advanced workshops including cadaveric training and simulation can be consistently promoted and provided globally via societies through telemonitoring. Involving patients in research should be encouraged, as it brings the perspective of a living experience.

Recognizing Excellence in Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Epidemiology: The National MCH Epidemiology Awards

PURPOSE

Professionals in the field of maternal and child health (MCH) epidemiology are publicly recognized by the Coalition for Excellence in MCH Epidemiology representing 16 national MCH agencies and organizations.

DESCRIPTION

During the CityMatCH Leadership and MCH Epidemiology Conference, the national awards are presented to public health professionals for improving the health of women, children, and families. The awards have evolved over the last two decades with focus on awardees that represent more types of MCH public health professionals.

ASSESSMENT

Since 2000, the Coalition has presented 111 national awards in the areas of advancing knowledge, effective practice, outstanding leadership, excellence in teaching and mentoring, early career professional achievement, and lifetime achievement. Effective practice awards were most often presented at 45 awards, followed by early career professional achievement with 20. The awardees varied by place of employment with 37 employed at academic institutions, 33 in federal government positions, 32 in state or county government, seven in non-profit and two in clinical organizations. Awards were almost equally distributed by gender with 49 presented to women and 48 to men. Assessment of career advancement among previous awardees and acknowledging workforce challenges are gaps identified within the national awards process.

CONCLUSION

Recognition of deserving MCH professionals sets the standard for those entering the field of MCH epidemiology and offers opportunity to recognize those who have built capacity and improved the health of women, children, and families.