Scholarlink

The research analyzes gender-specific patterns through which participants use ethical understanding and legal information to develop respect and recognition relationships. This research model leverages legal and ethical principles to analyze two mediators, Access to Funding and Resources (AFR) and Mentorship and Support Systems (MSS), which explain indirect relationships. The research establishes that Knowledge of Legal Rights (KLR) develops Respect Recognition (RR) through AFR between academic researchers, including both male (β = 0.490, p = 0.000) and female (β = 0.349, p = 0.000) participants, but reveals greater influence among male respondents. Both genders show statistical significance (p < 0.05) from Compliance with Ethical Guidelines (CEG) → AFR → RR path according to analysis. Males demonstrate a stronger response to this path yet again. The data confirmed that none of the paths included MSS led to statistical significance. The academic environment shows a difference between male and female researchers since they receive different benefits from institutional support. The study demands reforms in acknowledgment frameworks and academic resource systems, which should combat gender bias to establish equality in scientific practices.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Ethics and Legal Standards in Scientific Research: Investigating Gender Bias in the Respect and Recognition of Male Versus Female Researchers

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2026年

查看全文
  • Boumedyen Shannaq,
  • Raed Alnimer,
  • Rola A. A. Haddad

摘要

The research analyzes gender-specific patterns through which participants use ethical understanding and legal information to develop respect and recognition relationships. This research model leverages legal and ethical principles to analyze two mediators, Access to Funding and Resources (AFR) and Mentorship and Support Systems (MSS), which explain indirect relationships. The research establishes that Knowledge of Legal Rights (KLR) develops Respect Recognition (RR) through AFR between academic researchers, including both male (β = 0.490, p = 0.000) and female (β = 0.349, p = 0.000) participants, but reveals greater influence among male respondents. Both genders show statistical significance (p < 0.05) from Compliance with Ethical Guidelines (CEG) → AFR → RR path according to analysis. Males demonstrate a stronger response to this path yet again. The data confirmed that none of the paths included MSS led to statistical significance. The academic environment shows a difference between male and female researchers since they receive different benefits from institutional support. The study demands reforms in acknowledgment frameworks and academic resource systems, which should combat gender bias to establish equality in scientific practices.