For this Special issue of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries on ‘Closing the gender data gap in Human Factors research’, the guest editors will be following the recommendations from SAGER guidelines when evaluating manuscripts.
This page contains:
- Checklist for preparing your manuscript
- Process for Editors’ evaluation of manuscripts.
- Further Resources from Close the Data Gap
- Coming Soon
Checklist for preparing your manuscript*
In addition to the standard author guidelines for this Special Issue journal, the guest editors provide further guidance for gender equitable best practice for journal papers
(adapted from Heidari, S., Babor, T.F., De Castro, P. et al. Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Res Integr Peer Rev 1, 2 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6)
*(Note we appreciate that your manuscript may not fulfil all principles described below – we would be looking for your article to report the intention for best practice and appreciation of limitations where best practice was not possible)
| General principles |
| • Authors should use the terms sex and gender carefully in order to avoid confusing both terms. |
| • Where the subjects of research comprise organisms capable of differentiation by sex, the research should be designed and conducted in a way that can reveal sex-related differences in the results, even if these were not initially expected. |
| • Where subjects can also be differentiated by gender (shaped by social and cultural circumstances), the research should be conducted similarly at this additional level of distinction. |
| Recommendations per section of the article |
| Title and abstract |
| · If only one sex is included in the study, or if the results of the study are to be applied to only one sex or gender, the title and the abstract should specify the sex and gender of human participants. |
| · In applied sciences (technology, engineering, etc.), authors should indicate if the study model was based on one sex or the application was considered for the use of one specific sex. |
| Introduction |
| · Authors should report, where relevant, whether sex and/or gender differences may be expected by citing previous studies that show presence or lack of sex or gender differences or similarities. |
| · If such studies are lacking, the authors should explain whether sex and/or gender may be an important variant and if differences may be expected. |
| Methods |
| · Authors should report: |
| – how sex and gender were taken into account in the design of the study, |
| – whether they ensured adequate representation of males and females, |
| – justify the reasons for any exclusion of males or females. |
| · Methodological choices about sex and gender in relation to study population and analytical approach should be reported and justified in the same way as other methodological choices. |
| Results/Analysis |
| · Where appropriate, data should be routinely presented disaggregated by sex and gender and differences and similarities should be described. |
| · Sex- and gender-based analyses should be reported regardless of positive or negative outcome. |
| · Data on withdrawals and dropouts should also be reported disaggregated by sex and gender (where appropriate). |
| · Anatomical and physiological differences between men and women (height, weight, body mass, cell counts, hormonal cycles, etc.) as well as social and cultural variables (socio-economic status, education, etc.) should be taken into consideration in the presentation of data and/or analysis of the results. |
| · the influence of sex and gender factors should be assessed a priori on the basis of their hypothesized role in the causation, course, treatment effectiveness, impact and outcome of health problems. |
| · Authors should refrain from conducting a post hoc gender-based analysis if the study design is insufficient to enable meaningful conclusions. |
| · In all cases, raw data should be published disaggregated by sex and gender for future pooling and meta-analysis. |
| Discussion |
| · The potential implications of sex and gender on the study results and analyses should be discussed including the extent to which the findings can be generalized to all sexes and genders in a population. |
| · If a sex and gender analysis was not conducted, the rationale should be given. |
| · Authors should further discuss the implications of the lack of such analysis on the interpretation of the results in the limitations of the study. |
| · When interpreting research findings, past research should be examined for both methodological rigour and sex bias in procedure and interpretation. |
| · Authors should consider all possible explanations for sex- and gender-related phenomena including social, cultural, biological and situational factors, recognizing that many sex-related behaviours might result from either cultural factors or biological factors. |
Process for Editors’ evaluation of manuscripts.
In addition to the standard process reviewers follow for Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, for this special issue, the guest editors will be following the recommended process by SAGER guidelines below with the caveat that we come from a clear position of considering sex and gender to be relevant to every topic of study (though this may be a few steps removed from the specific research under consideration). We endorse an ethos of considering ‘How is sex and gender relevant to the topic of study?’. Examples of factors where sex and gender could be relevant to research topics can be found here
From: Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use
Further Resources from Close the Data Gap
Coming soon:
- Guidance for images used in manuscripts
- Guidance for sex / gender sensitive terminology