Objective: To evaluate the gender approach in biomedical researchers through the analysis of the five stages that make up the research process: I) institutional planning for the formation of the team; II) culture and climate of the research team; III) content and process of the research; IV) choice of journal; and V) process of elaborating and writing the scientific article.

Short description.

A questionnaire was developed to assess gender equality  in biomedical research https://healthinclusiveresearch.com/Login/LoginAuto?email=0M3wMDCgp5okVlhExg99lg==&password=KH2zIMAw9t3WCBYGw37Cdw==&lang=en) which contained 41 questions divided into five blocks relating to the institution, the team, the research, the journal and the scientific article. The result of the questionnaire yielded a specific score for each block and an overall score. The grading of compliance with the inclusion of gender in research allows it to be scaled in three ranges: 'low', if the score is less than 30%; 'medium', if the score is between 31-60%; and 'high', if the score is above 60% of the degree of inclusion of the gender perspective in the research process. In collaboration with the Universitat de València and the Instituto Superior de Serviço Social do Porto, the questionnaire was sent by e-mail to 71,144 biomedical researchers in Spain and 18,403 in Portugal.

A total of 1432 questionnaires were completed in Spain (57.5% women) and 369 in Portugal (63% women), achieving a gender balance in the sample with 40-60% participation of both sexes. The results show an overall score for gender inclusion in research of 58.4% in Spain and 51.6% in Portugal. Therefore, according to the range established, it can be concluded that biomedical investigation is at an average level of compliance with equality criteria. The specific analysis of the results obtained shows that in Spain, Block III on 'Content and process of research' is the one that best complies with the gender approach (66.1%), while in Portugal it is 47.4%. On the other hand, Block IV 'Choice of journal' received the lowest score in both Spain (38.9%) and Portugal (31.3%), followed by Block II 'Culture and climate of the research team', both of which are furthest away from integrating a gender perspective. It is worth noting that in Portugal, Block I 'institutional planning for the formation of the team' was rated the highest (54.2%), very similar to the value for Spain (56.6%). In conclusion, there is a clear need to implement measures to promote equality between men and women in order to minimise the gender gap, which is particularly reflected in the composition of scientific groups and professional categories in scientific institutions and journals.