Female grant applicants are equally successful when peer reviewers assess the science, but not when they assess the scientist

Witteman, Holly O.; Hendricks, Michael; Straus, Sharon E.; Tannenbaum, Cara

doi:10.1101/232868

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 101 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Analyses of success rates have yielded mixed results in terms of 22 the presence and magnitude of such inequities. Some analyses have found lower success rates for 23 female-authored papers [17,18] and grant applications [19,20], while other studies have found no 24 gender differences in review outcomes (for examples, see [21][22][23][24][25]). Inequities in journal success 25 rates based on authors' nationalities or country of affiliation have also been documented, with 26 reports that authors from English-speaking and scientifically-advanced countries have higher 27 success rates [26,27]; however, other studies found no evidence that the language or country of 28 affiliation of an author influences peer review outcomes [27][28][29].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review

Murray

Siler

Larivière

et al. 2018

Preprint

137

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fairness of scholarly peer review has been challenged by evidence of disparities in publication outcomes based on author demographic characteristics. To assess this, we conducted an exploratory analysis of peer review outcomes of 23,876 initial submissions and 7,192 full submissions that were submitted to the biosciences journal eLife between 2012 and 2017. Women and authors from nations outside of North America and Europe were underrepresented both as gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers) and authors. We found evidence of a homophilic relationship between the demographics of the gatekeepers and authors and the outcome of peer review; that is, there were higher rates of acceptance in the case of gender and country homophily. The acceptance rate for manuscripts with male last authors was seven percent, or 3.5 percentage points, greater than for female last authors (95% CI = [0.5, 6.4]); this gender inequity was greatest, at nine percent or about 4.8 percentage points (95% CI = [0.3, 9.1]), when the team of reviewers was all male; this difference was smaller and not significantly different for mixed-gender reviewer teams. Homogeny between countries of the gatekeeper and the corresponding author was also associated with higher acceptance rates for many countries. To test for the persistence of these effects after controlling for potentially confounding variables, we conducted a logistic regression including document and author metadata. Disparities in acceptance rates associated with gender and country of affiliation and the homophilic associations remained. We conclude with a discussion of mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications. Code and anonymized data have been made available at https://github.com/murrayds/elife-analysis 1/61 Submitted to PLOS Biology Author summaryPeer review, the primary method by which scientific work is evaluated, is ideally a fair and equitable process in which scientific work is judged solely on its own merit. However, the integrity of peer review has been called into question based on evidence that outcomes often differ between male and female authors, and for authors in different countries. We investigated such disparities at the biosciences journal eLife by analyzing the demographics of authors and gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers), and peer review outcomes of all submissions between 2012 and 2017. Outcomes were more favorable for male authors and those affiliated with institutions in North America and Europe; these groups were also over-represented among gatekeepers. There was evidence that peer review outcomes were influenced by homophily-a preference of gatekeepers for manuscripts from authors with shared characteristics. We discuss mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications. 2/61Submitted to PLOS Biology 1 Peer review is foundational to the development, gatekeeping, and dissemination of research, 2 while also underpinning the professional hiera...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review

Murray

Siler

Larivière

et al. 2018

Preprint

137

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An important question for modern cognitive science is whether there is gender disparity in opportunity and advancement over the professional lifespan (Ceci, Ginther, Kahn, & Williams, 2014;Geraci, Balsis, & Busch, 2015;Valian, 1998). Certainly, attitudes about women's career roles in STEM (i.e., science, technology, engineering, & medicine), and educational/career trajectories have evolved compared to generations past (Cundiff, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Certainly, attitudes about women's career roles in STEM (i.e., science, technology, engineering, & medicine), and educational/career trajectories have evolved compared to generations past (Cundiff, 2012). Such improvements have occasionally sparked doubts as to whether a gender parity problem still exists (e.g., Ceci, Ginther, Kahn, & Williams, 2014), a sentiment that is potentially exacerbated by notions of academic meritocracy, and limited awareness about the influence of implicit gender schemas on everyday behavior (Valian, 1998). However, varied sources of evidence indicate that academia has not attained gender parity (Cundiff, 2012, Hill, Corbett, & St. Rose, 2010Duch, Zeng, Sales-Pardo, Radicchi, Otis, & Woodruff, 2012;Kite, Felipe Russo, Brehm, Fouad, Hall, Hyde, & Keita, 2001;Morawski & Agronick, 1991), even within disciplines viewed as "feminized," such as psychology (e.g., Vaid & Geraci, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The status of women cognitive scientists in Canada: Insights from publicly available NSERC funding data.

Titone

Tiv

Pexman

2018

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A crucial question within science and academia, and cognitive science specifically, is whether there is gender disparity in opportunity and advancement over the professional life span (e.g., Ceci, Ginther, Kahn, & Williams, 2014; Geraci, Balsis, & Busch, 2015; Valian, 1998). To investigate this question, we analyzed gender distributions in publicly available federal funding data from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada that are specific to cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience. There were three key results. First, the proportion of women cognitive scientists progressively diminished at each career stage, particularly at the transition between graduate and postdoctoral studies. Second, female principal investigators (PI) received smaller average Discovery Grant amounts and were less likely to receive Discovery Accelerator Supplements as a proportion of all Discovery Grants funded. Finally, at the PI level, gender differences were relatively smaller for institution-initiated grants (i.e., Canada Research Chairs) versus investigator-initiated grants (i.e., Discovery Grants). It is our hope that presentation of such data, in concert with other recent reports for our field (e.g., Klatzky, Holt, & Behrmann, 2015; Peelle, 2016; Vaid & Geraci, 2016), continues to raise awareness that gender parity issues remain a concern that deserves ongoing attention within the field of cognitive science in Canada. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

“…Wellcome explained that this was “attributable to less favorable assessments of women as principal investigators, not differences in assessments of the quality of science led by women.”23…”

Section: Extreme Bias In Research Fundingmentioning

confidence: 99%