Thank you, I will! 🙂

(as I have heard myself the phrase "there are no/zero autistic researchers in A2T/in autism research" many times, from PIs, NT researchers, and members of the public alike).

So I think it's likely that the actual sample size was somewhere in between, although I had no data or resources to establish that. Ofc, this is a limitation of the study, but I hope the findings will inspire better practices, and will make autistic researchers in A2T feel seen, at least a little

As the average contract length in academia is 24 months, many may have moved to other projects, especially among ECRs. Unfortunately, there had been no census of members since 2018, but the attendants to the A2T general meeting in 2023 was 106.

That said, the pre-print reports there number of contributors at the inception of A2T: "According to the AIMS-2-TRIALS website, that was last updated in 2018, there were 239 active contributors". The survey was collected in 2022, and it is expected the number of active contributors to decrease.

Hi! I'd never think that. As for all outputs in science, we should be skeptical of anyone who claims findings are conclusive, and I very much never think mine are or wish to communicate that they are. It's just a step to a direction, that I hope will inspire to look into this further, and better.

Thank you! Sure, I will!

Neurodivergent researchers—both formally diagnosed and self-identified—were significantly more likely to report mental health diagnoses after accounting for other factors. We discuss this in relation to the autism research field and broader academic culture. 4/4

4% of researchers in the consortium were formally diagnosed autistic, with 15% self-identifying without diagnosis. Rates were higher in early career stages—highlighting the importance of support and inclusion in academia. 3/4

Following the journal's open peer review policy, the paper will receive public comments, and we will submit further revisions based on that feedback. In brief, our findings show... 2/4

3/3 The peer-reviewed paper reporting these results (as well as possible interpretations, limitations of this work, and future directions) is currently in print. Happy to share the link once it's published.

2/3 We found a skewed distribution of researchers who declared to be ND (diagnosed of self-identified) in junior positions. However, the survey was quantitative, so we didn't get the chance of investigating the reasons & their interaction, e.g., exclusion, lack of diagnosis in older people etc

1/3 Hi, thank you for your interest in my research! This results come from a survey that I collected in 2022, investigating the neurodiversity (among other things, such as socioeconomic status) of A2T researchers at that time.