When norms collide: The effect of religious holidays on compliance with COVID guidelines.

Aim: This paper investigates the effect of a religious holiday (Eid-ul-Fitr in Pakistan) on compliance behaviour instituted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Longstanding religion-based norms of behaviour during the Eid holidays (traveling to meet family members, praying in large gatherings, hugging) may counteract newly established (and weaker) norms of health-preserving behaviours. Method: We study the impact of Eid-ul-Fitr on compliance with COVID guidelines for a sample of university students. Our effects are identified by unprompted delays in fielding a survey measuring compliance with prescribed behaviours. Results: We find that compliance with guidelines declines immediately after the religious holiday in our sample of students, with no observable decline in other well documented predictors of compliance behaviour (risk perceptions, trust in the authorities). We find that this decline in compliance is largely attributable to male participants, with one important exception. We further confirm our results by conducting robustness checks incorporating matching techniques and a smaller follow-up study where we randomize invitations to the survey. Conclusion: We conclude that amid the pandemic, newly formed norms pertaining to healthcare guidelines (focusing on social-distancing) emerged, and were subsequently undercut by longstanding norms of behaviour following a religious celebration: Eid-ul-Fitr. This paper underscores the fragility of these newly emerged norms, especially when challenged by a more well-entrenched, traditional norm.

Gender distribution in psychiatry journals' editorial boards worldwide.

Gender disparity has been documented in advanced doctoral degrees, research, and academic positions, and therefore, it can logically be deduced that the gender disparity would be found in journals' editorial boards. In this study, we sought to determine the gender distribution in editorial boards of psychiatry journals worldwide. We also studied the academic achievements of editorial board members by comparing professional background, education level, and research productivity indices. We analyzed the gender of editorial members of 119 psychiatry journals from Clarivate Analytics' Journal Citation Reports. Our data included 8423 editorial board members from which we randomly selected 10% editorial board members to represent the full sample for further analyses. Overall, women represented 30.4% of editorial board and approximately 30% in each category: (1) Editor-in-chief/deputies, (2) Associate/section editors, (3) Editorial board*, and (4) Advisory board. The majority (65%) of men were M.D. psychiatrists, and women (58%) were Ph.D. psychologists. Women in editorial leadership positions (Category 1 & 2) were correlated with fewer women in editorial or advisory boards. Women had half the mean number of publications than men while serving journals with approximately the same mean impact factor. Our study results show that, besides gender disparity, gender bias does not exist in the psychiatry journal editorial boards. Given the implication of the editorial board position on science, academic advancement, and networking, this disparity remains detrimental to achieving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academic psychiatry.