Suchergebnisse
Filter
6 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis
In: Research integrity and peer review, Band 8, Heft 1
ISSN: 2058-8615
Abstract
Background
Differential participation and success in grant applications may contribute to women's lesser representation in the sciences. This study's objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to address the question of gender differences in grant award acceptance rates and reapplication award acceptance rates (potential bias in peer review outcomes) and other grant outcomes.
Methods
The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021232153) and conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 standards. We searched Academic Search Complete, PubMed, and Web of Science for the timeframe 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2020, and forward and backward citations. Studies were included that reported data, by gender, on any of the following: grant applications or reapplications, awards, award amounts, award acceptance rates, or reapplication award acceptance rates. Studies that duplicated data reported in another study were excluded. Gender differences were investigated by meta-analyses and generalized linear mixed models. Doi plots and LFK indices were used to assess reporting bias.
Results
The searches identified 199 records, of which 13 were eligible. An additional 42 sources from forward and backward searches were eligible, for a total of 55 sources with data on one or more outcomes. The data from these studies ranged from 1975 to 2020: 49 sources were published papers and six were funders' reports (the latter were identified by forwards and backwards searches). Twenty-nine studies reported person-level data, 25 reported application-level data, and one study reported both: person-level data were used in analyses. Award acceptance rates were 1% higher for men, which was not significantly different from women (95% CI 3% more for men to 1% more for women, k = 36, n = 303,795 awards and 1,277,442 applications, I2 = 84%). Reapplication award acceptance rates were significantly higher for men (9%, 95% CI 18% to 1%, k = 7, n = 7319 applications and 3324 awards, I2 = 63%). Women received smaller award amounts (g = -2.28, 95% CI -4.92 to 0.36, k = 13, n = 212,935, I2 = 100%).
Conclusions
The proportions of women that applied for grants, re-applied, accepted awards, and accepted awards after reapplication were less than the proportion of eligible women. However, the award acceptance rate was similar for women and men, implying no gender bias in this peer reviewed grant outcome. Women received smaller awards and fewer awards after re-applying, which may negatively affect continued scientific productivity. Greater transparency is needed to monitor and verify these data globally.
The privilege and burden of peer review
In: Cultural diversity and ethnic minority psychology, Band 22, Heft 1, S. 147-150
ISSN: 1939-0106
Grant reviewer perceptions of the quality, effectiveness, and influence of panel discussion
In: Research integrity and peer review, Band 5, Heft 1
ISSN: 2058-8615
Abstract
Background
Funding agencies have long used panel discussion in the peer review of research grant proposals as a way to utilize a set of expertise and perspectives in making funding decisions. Little research has examined the quality of panel discussions and how effectively they are facilitated.
Methods
Here, we present a mixed-method analysis of data from a survey of reviewers focused on their perceptions of the quality, effectiveness, and influence of panel discussion from their last peer review experience.
Results
Reviewers indicated that panel discussions were viewed favorably in terms of participation, clarifying differing opinions, informing unassigned reviewers, and chair facilitation. However, some reviewers mentioned issues with panel discussions, including an uneven focus, limited participation from unassigned reviewers, and short discussion times. Most reviewers felt the discussions affected the review outcome, helped in choosing the best science, and were generally fair and balanced. However, those who felt the discussion did not affect the outcome were also more likely to evaluate panel communication negatively, and several reviewers mentioned potential sources of bias related to the discussion. While respondents strongly acknowledged the importance of the chair in ensuring appropriate facilitation of the discussion to influence scoring and to limit the influence of potential sources of bias from the discussion on scoring, nearly a third of respondents did not find the chair of their most recent panel to have performed these roles effectively.
Conclusions
It is likely that improving chair training in the management of discussion as well as creating review procedures that are informed by the science of leadership and team communication would improve review processes and proposal review reliability.
The Chronic Fatigue Twin Registry: method of construction, composition, and zygosity assignment
In: Twin research, Band 2, Heft 3, S. 203-211
ISSN: 2053-6003
Defining diversity: A mixed-method analysis of terminology in faculty applications
In: Social science journal: official journal of the Western Social Science Association, Band 53, Heft 1, S. 60-66
ISSN: 0362-3319