Girls just wanna have funds: A new Transparent Reporting Scale for evaluating grant data reporting from funding agencies

Natasha Clarke^1,2*Soumaiya Imarraine³Abigail Elaine Licata⁴Thuy Dao⁵Ginevra Sperandio⁶Ana Luísa Pinho⁷Valentina Borghesani⁴Paola Mengotti⁸Antonietta Gabriella Liuzzi⁹Doris Pischedda^10*

• ¹Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada
• ²Centre de Recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Geriatrie de Montreal, Montreal, Canada
• ³Sorbonne Universite, Paris, France
• ⁴Universite de Geneve, Geneva, Switzerland
• ⁵The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
• ⁶HAW Kiel, Kiel, Germany
• ⁷Western University, London, Canada
• ⁸Forschungszentrum Julich GmbH, Jülich, Germany
• ⁹Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
• ¹⁰Universita di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

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 UK. 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. 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 (ρ = 0.64, 95% CI [0.33, 0.83], p = 0.001) and gross domestic product of the countries where funders are based (ρ = 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. 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, standardised reporting practices in order to support evidence-based progress towards gender equity.