Are LGBT+ people underrepresented in academia?

[sujonkumar6300]

In response to this, our meta-review (Nordström et al., 2023) explored the realm of educational systematic reviews, seeking those with a ‘low risk of bias’. Reviews assessed as ‘low risk of bias’ are deemed more credible, as opposed to reviews assessed as ‘high risk of bias’, where reviews often lack methodological rigour and where the evidence of how effective, or ineffective, an intervention is can be questioned. There are also increasing demands, not least from the EU, to make science more open, such as that researchers share their methods and materials. This can have many advantages, for example that findings from high-quality reviews can be more easily cayman islands email list reused and/or critically examined.

From our search, we initially examined 258 systematic reviews on educational effectiveness published in recent years. In this stage we discovered that many authors had not specified the most basic information we needed to be able to include them in our review, such as which population they focused on (17 per cent) or what type of outcome measures they wanted to target (17 per cent) – for example, that the intervention should target a specific skill, such as reading comprehension. The same were also observed for what type of studies (23 per cent) authors wanted to include – for example, to include either experimental or observational studies – along with unspecified details of what to compare the intervention effect with (45 per cent). As clearly outlined in handbooks of systematic review methods this blending of all types of studies, designs and outcome measures makes the systematic review less useful for readers who wants to inform themselves about the effectiveness of a particular intervention to be used in practice.