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

Scientific awards can shape scientific careers, helping to secure jobs and grants, but can also contribute to the lack of diversity at senior levels and in the elite networks of scientists. To assess the status quo and historical trends, we evaluated 'best researcher' awards and 'best paper' early- and mid-career awards from broad-scope international journals and societies in ecology and evolution. Specifically, we collated information on eligibility rules, assessment criteria and potential gender bias. Our results reveal that, overall, few awards foster equitable access and assessment. Although many awards now explicitly allow extensions of the eligibility period for substantial career interruptions, there is a general lack of transparency in terms of assessment and consideration of other differences in access to opportunities and resources among junior researchers. Strikingly, open science practices were mentioned and valued in only one award. By highlighting instances of desirable award characteristics, we hope this work will nudge award committees to shift from simple but non-equitable award policies and practices towards strategies enhancing inclusivity and diversity. Such a shift would benefit not only those at the early- and mid-career stages but the whole research community. It is also an untapped opportunity to reward open science practices, promoting transparent and robust science. An analysis of the eligibility rules, assessment criteria and potential gender bias in best researcher and best paper awards from broad-scope ecology and evolution journals and societies shows a lack of assessment transparency, few attempts to foster equitable access and minimal consideration of open science.

Automated summary

An analysis of the eligibility rules, assessment criteria, and potential gender bias in best researcher and best paper awards from broad-scope ecology and evolution journals and societies shows a lack of assessment transparency, few attempts to foster equitable access, and minimal consideration of open science.