Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Curating more diverse scientific conferences

Nature Reviews Neuroscience volume 21, pages 589–590 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Scientific meetings are an opportunity to promote research and researchers. However, despite best intentions, scientific conferences can fall short of reflecting the gender balance and diversity of the communities they serve. Here we discuss initiatives to enhance gender balance and diversity at Cosyne 2020.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J. & Huge, M. The Matilda effect in science communication: an experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Sci. Commun. 35, 603–625 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Tomkins, A., Zhang, M. & Heavlin, W. D. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 12708–12713 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Blank, R. M. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. The American Economic Review 81, 1041–1067 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Merton, R. K. The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science 159, 56–63 (1968).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. BiasWatchNeuro. Computational neuroscience base rates. https://biaswatchneuro.com/base-rates/computational-neuroscience-base-rates/ (2016).

  6. Cosyne Talks. COSYNE 2020 Session 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elF1T_UHcFs (2020).

  7. Lerchenmueller, M. J., Sorenson, O. & Jena, A. B. Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study. BMJ 367, l6573 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurobiology, Grossman Institute for Neuroscience, Quantitative Biology and Human Behavior, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Anne-Marie M. Oswald

  2. Laboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitives et Computationelles, Département d’Études Cognitives, École Normale Supérieure, INSERM U960, PSL University, Paris, France

    Srdjan Ostojic

Authors
  1. Anne-Marie M. Oswald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Srdjan Ostojic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne-Marie M. Oswald.

Additional information

Related links

Base rates; BiasWatchNeuro: https://biaswatchneuro.com/base-rates/

BiasWatchNeuro: https://biaswatchneuro.com/

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oswald, AM.M., Ostojic, S. Curating more diverse scientific conferences. Nat Rev Neurosci 21, 589–590 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-020-0373-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-020-0373-4

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing