Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis

@article{Bornmann2007GenderDI,
  title={Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis},
  author={Lutz Bornmann and R{\"u}diger Mutz and Hans-Dieter Daniel},
  journal={J. Informetrics},
  year={2007},
  volume={1},
  pages={226-238}
}
Narrative reviews of peer review research have concluded that there is negligible evidence of gender bias in the awarding of grants based on peer review. [...] Key Result Even though the estimates of the gender effect vary substantially from study to study, the model estimation shows that all in all, among grant applicants men have statistically significant greater odds of receiving grants than women by about 7%.Expand

Figures and Tables from this paper

Gender Effects in the Peer Reviews of Grant Proposals: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Comparing Traditional and Multilevel Approaches
Peer review is valued in higher education, but also widely criticized in terms of potential biases, particularly gender. We evaluate gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications,Expand
Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model
Peer review serves a gatekeeper role, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but is widely criticized in terms of potential biases—particularly in relation to gender. In thisExpand
Does Gender Matter in Grant Peer Review?
TLDR
It is found that the final decision was not associated with applicant’s gender or with any correspondence between gender of applicants and reviewers, and the decisions on the grant applications showed a robust female reviewer salience effect. Expand
Gender-equal funding rates conceal unequal evaluations
Abstract Previous studies have found little or no systematic differences in the rates at which female and male scientists are awarded funding in international grant competitions. However, pastExpand
Gender and other potential biases in peer review: cross-sectional analysis of 38 250 external peer review reports
Objectives To examine whether the gender of applicants and peer reviewers and other factors influence peer review of grant proposals submitted to a national funding agency. Setting Swiss NationalExpand
Bias and Groupthink in Science’s Peer-Review System
Studies have shown that various types of biases can impact scientific peer review. These biases may contribute to a type of groupthink that can make it difficult to obtain funding or publishExpand
Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution
TLDR
The conclusion that papersauthored by women have lower acceptance rates and are less well cited than are papers authored by men in ecology is strongly supported. Expand
Gender bias in the allocation of student grants
TLDR
The current study demonstrates that the factors that were assumed to contribute the most to the gender gap in more senior academics do not explain it fully: even when those factors do not yet play a role, such as in the student sample, women were found to have lower success rates than men. Expand
The leaky pipeline in research grant peer review and funding decisions: challenges and future directions
TLDR
It is argued that a more comprehensive approach is needed to further the debate, encompassing individual and systemic biases as well as more global social barriers, and that examining gender biases during the peer review process of research grant funding poses critical methodological challenges that deserve special attention. Expand
What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?
TLDR
Funders should acknowledge, assess and analyse the uncertainty around peer review, even using reviewers’ uncertainty as an input to funding decisions, and consider a lottery element in some parts of their funding allocation process to reduce both burden and bias. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 65 REFERENCES
Institutionalized biases in the award of research grants: a preliminary analysis revisiting the principle of accumulative advantage
Abstract Accumulative advantage in the research system may allow elite groups to secure a disproportionate share of resources. Using grant submissions data to a UK Research Council, associationsExpand
Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications.
TLDR
There is little empirical evidence on the effects of grant giving peer review on the quality of funded research, but practices aimed to control and evaluate the potentially negative effects of peer review should be implemented meanwhile. Expand
Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees' decisions
TLDR
Bibliometric analysis showed that the selection procedure followed by the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds is thus highly valid: research articles by B.I.F. fellows are cited considerably more often than the “average' paper (average citation rate) published in the journal sets corresponding to the fields “Multidisciplinary', “Molecular Biology & Genetics', and “Biology & Biochemistry' in Essential Science Indicators (ESI). Expand
Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry
Chapter 2 Introduction Chapter 3 Peer Review and the Marketplace of Ideas Chapter 4 Bias and Anonymity in the Peer Review Process Chapter 5 Is Peer Review Inherently Conservative? Should It Be?Expand
Is there gender bias in research fellowships awarded by the NHMRC?
TLDR
To assess whether there is gender bias in the allocation of research fellowships granted by the Research Fellowships Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council, a large number of researchers believe that there is. Expand
What meta-analyses have and have not taught us about psychotherapy effects: a review and future directions.
TLDR
There is currently little agreement in the reviewed meta-analyses concerning the limits of the apparent robustness of intervention effects, and variables considered as potential moderators of psychotherapy effects are frequently confounded with other study characteristics. Expand
Reviewing scientific works in psychology
As one of the contributors to this volume points out, great peer reviewers are among the unsung heroes of academia. Unfortunately, few psychologists receive training in reviewing the works of theirExpand
Nepotism and sexism in peer-review
In the first-ever analysis of peer-review scores for postdoctoral fellowship applications, the system is revealed as being riddled with prejudice. The policy of secrecy in evaluation must beExpand
Consequences of Prejudice Against the Null Hypothesis
The consequences of prejudice against accepting the null hypothesis were examined through (a) a mathematical model intended to stimulate the research-publication process and (b) case studies ofExpand
Guardians of Science: Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review
H-D Daniel, VCH, (pounds sterling)25, pp 118, ISBN 3-527-29041-9 Early this century an eccentric Boston surgeon, E A Codman, suggested that surgeons should follow up their patients to determine howExpand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...