Threats to objectivity in peer review: the case of gender

Kaatz, Anna; Gutierrez, Belinda; Carnes, Molly

doi:10.1016/j.tips.2014.06.005

Cited by 116 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recall: these differences did not translate into any significant differences in the decisions on manuscripts. Why authors and editors, especially men, don't suggest women to review may reflect a number of factors, but it is often attributed at least in part to implicit bias 1,10 .…”

Section: Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most studies of gender inequality in publishing have assigned gender to authors 3,4 but have lacked information on age. This is important because many fields have only recently seen B ias -explicit and implicit -is an important cause of the underrepresentation of women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) 1 . Women and minorities are disadvantaged in hiring or promotion decisions, awarding of grants, invitations to conferences, nominations for awards, and forming professional collaborations 2 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Journals invite too few women to referee

Lerback

Hanson

2017

Nature

237

222

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Journals invite too few women to referee

Lerback

Hanson

2017

Nature

237

222

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite various attempts to promote gender equality (e.g., affirmative action initiatives, quotas), female scientists are less likely to get offered tenure, are judged to be less competent, receive less payment and research facilities, and are less likely to be awarded research grants compared with male scientists (1)(2)(3). Over time, this type of bias accumulates and contributes to the attrition of women from academia (4); the academic pipeline leaks.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands

Lee

Ellemers

2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

221

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the application and review materials of three calls (n = 2,823) of a prestigious grant for personal research funding in a national full population of early career scientists awarded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Results showed evidence of gender bias in application evaluations and success rates, as well as in language use in instructions and evaluation sheets. Male applicants received significantly more competitive "quality of researcher" evaluations (but not "quality of proposal" evaluations) and had significantly higher application success rates than female applicants. Gender disparities were most prevalent in scientific disciplines with the highest number of applications and with equal gender distribution among the applicants (i.e., life sciences and social sciences). Moreover, content analyses of the instructional and evaluation materials revealed the use of gendered language favoring male applicants. Overall, our data reveal a 4% "loss" of women during the grant review procedure, and illustrate the perpetuation of the funding gap, which contributes to the underrepresentation of women in academia.gender bias | research funding | success rates | academia | STEM W omen are still underrepresented in academia today. Despite various attempts to promote gender equality (e.g., affirmative action initiatives, quotas), female scientists are less likely to get offered tenure, are judged to be less competent, receive less payment and research facilities, and are less likely to be awarded research grants compared with male scientists (1-3). Over time, this type of bias accumulates and contributes to the attrition of women from academia (4); the academic pipeline leaks. Here we report evidence of gender bias in personal research funding for early career scientists.The importance of equal gender representation is widely acknowledged, for several reasons. First, it can resolve historic inequalities and provide equal opportunities (the "moral case for diversity") (5, 6). Second, research has demonstrated that gender diversity in organizations can boost innovation and creativity, expand target groups, and increase productivity (the "business case for diversity") (7, 8), either directly or indirectly through decision making processes or reputation, and provided that the organizational culture is open to change (9-12). This is true for academia as well. Gender-diverse research teams facilitate innovation and excellence in research and policy, address different research questions and methods, and facilitate wider application of research findings (13), thereby contributing to scientific progress.Relevant statistics, however, show a persistent leadership gap, salary gap, and funding gap for women in academia (3). To illustrate, The Netherlands-generally considered a high-equity nationhad only 16% female full professors in 2012 (14). Leadership is stereotyped as masculine and consequently associated more strongly with stereotypical male traits rather than female traits. Although women a...

show abstract

“…These findings were supported by a subsequent meta-analysis of 21 studies on this topic, which found that grant applications submitted by men were 7 per cent more likely to be approved than those submitted by women (Bornmann et al 2007). 19 Furthermore, recent studies have also found evidence of gender bias (Jang et al 2016;Kaatz et al 2014Kaatz et al , 2015Tamblyn et al 2016; Van der Lee & Ellemers 2015;Volker & Steenbeek 2015). For example, Van der Lee & Ellemers (2015) reported a 4 per cent 'loss' of women during the grant review process for awards to early career scientists by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).…”

Section: Is Peer Review Fair?mentioning

confidence: 99%

What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? An updated review of the literature and six case studies

Guthrie¹,

Ghiga²,

Wooding³

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An updated review of the literature and six case studies RAND Europe is a not-for-profit organisation whose mission is to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution RightsThis document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. Support RANDMake a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org www.rand.org/randeurope For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1822Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cambridge, UK © Copyright 2018 RAND CorporationR® is a registered trademark.ii PrefaceIn 2009, RAND Europe conducted a literature review in order to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of peer review for grant funding. This report presents an update to that review to reflect new literature on the topic, and adds case studies exploring peer review practice at six international funders.This report was produced with funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. It will be of interest to government officials dealing with research funding policy, research funders including governmental and charitable funders, research institutions, researchers, and research users. Although the case studies focus on biomedical and health research, the literature review takes a broader scope and it is likely the findings may be of relevance to wider research fields.For further information on this publication please contact: SummaryThough often viewed as the 'gold standard' process of quality assurance for research, grant peer review has also received significant criticism from both within and outside academia. Detractors highlight inefficiency and structural flaws that compromise its effectiveness in allocating funding. In 2009 we conducted a review of the literature to evaluate these criticisms. 1 This new report updates that literature review, and also provides case studies of current practice across six major international biomedical and health research funders. The work was commissioned by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) with the aim of supporting the ongoing review of their peer review system, particularly the forthcoming work of the Peer Review Expert Panel convened to review the design and adjudication processes of CIHR's investigator-initiated research programmes. What is grant peer review?In its most basic form, peer review involves academic reviewers in the process...

show abstract

Threats to objectivity in peer review: the case of gender

Cited by 116 publications

References 17 publications

Journals invite too few women to referee

Journals invite too few women to referee

Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands

What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? An updated review of the literature and six case studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About