Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 3, 2026

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning
Published on: August 29, 2025
Girls just wanna have funds: a new Transparent Reporting Scale for evaluating grant data reporting from funding
Natasha Clarke1,2, Abigail E Licata3, Soumaiya Imarraine4,5
1Department of Psychology, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Introduction:
Despite the increasing representation of women in scientific fields, disparities in research funding allocation remain. This inequity deprives talented women researchers of necessary resources, limiting the diversity of perspectives and ideas, and contributes to the "scissor-shaped curve" seen in neuroscience, where women leave before obtaining senior positions. Data transparency and comprehensive reporting of information on grant winners and applicants, as well as reporting of gender and other intersecting demographics and key metrics, are crucial to effectively evaluate funding equity. However, there is a lack of guidelines on which data funders should report. In this study, we aimed to investigate the transparency of neuroscience funders across Europe, focusing on the European Union, Schengen area, and the United Kingdom.
Methods:
To this end, we developed a Transparent Reporting Scale (TRS), composed of 15 items crucial to facilitate transparent and meaningful reporting, and searched for public data from funders in order to apply the scale and evaluate their transparency in data reporting. Across 32 countries and the European Union as a whole, we identified 39 funders, with 90% sharing publicly available data on funding results.
Results:
Using the TRS, five funders received a "gold" rating, eighteen a "silver" one, and thirteen a "bronze" rating. Scale scores were significantly correlated with the Gender Equality Index [p = 0.64, 95% CI (0.33, 0.83), p = 0.001] and gross domestic product of the countries where funders are based [p = 0.51, 95% CI (0.20, 0.74), p = 0.003], suggesting that collection and/or publication of funding data may reflect overall commitments to gender equity, and be limited due to resources. Data from only 29% of funders could be disaggregated for the neuroscience category specifically, indicating the difficulty in evaluating equity in our field.
Discussion:
We collated all available data into an Open Science Framework repository to enable data sharing and further analyses. The TRS can support funders in adopting transparent, standardized reporting practices in order to support evidence-based progress toward gender equity.
More Related Videos
07:50A Metadata Extraction Approach for Clinical Case Reports to Enable Advanced Understanding of Biomedical Concepts
Published on: September 20, 2018
06:05The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
Related Concept Videos
Data Reporting and Recording
Ratio Level of Measurement
A set of data measured using the ratio scale takes care of the ratio problem and provides complete information. Ratio scale data are like interval scale data, except they have a zero point and ratios can be calculated....
Types of Reports I: Hands-off Report
Following are the key components and categories of hand-off reports:
Purpose and Process:
Types of Reports II: Incident or Occurrence Report
Purposes:
In the healthcare industry, reports play a crucial role in documenting incidents within an agency. The primary objective of these reports is to ensure patient safety, uphold the...
Ordinal Level of Measurement
Data measured using an ordinal scale are similar to nominal scale data, but there is one major difference. The ordinal scale data can be ordered. An example of ordinal scale data is a list of the top five national parks...
Standard Deviation of Calculated Results
A broad Gaussian distribution curve has a wider standard deviation, representing a data set with...