Gender Differences in Successful National Institutes of Health Funding in Ophthalmology

Svider, Peter F.; D’Aguillo, Christine; White, Priscilla E.; Pashkova, Anna A.; Bhagat, Neelakshi; Langer, Paul D.; Eloy, Jean Anderson

doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.01.020

Cited by 80 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An unconscious bias is an implicit attitude, stereotype, motivation, or assumption that can occur without one’s knowledge, control, or intention [8]. Forms of unconscious bias include gender bias, racial bias, and ageism, with gender bias representing one of the most frequently investigated biases associated with grant peer review [9–23]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo review the literature on strategies implemented or identified to prevent or reduce gender bias in peer review of research grants.MethodsStudies of any type of qualitative or quantitative design examining interventions to reduce or prevent gender bias during the peer review of health-related research grants were included. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs, the Cochrane Library, Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews, and the Campbell Library were searched from 2005 to April 2016. A search for grey (i.e., difficult to locate or unpublished) literature was conducted and experts in the field were consulted to identify additional potentially relevant articles. Two individuals screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and abstracted data with discrepancies resolved by a third person consistently.ResultsAfter screening 5524 citations and 170 full-text articles, one article evaluating gender-blinding of grant applications using an uncontrolled before-after study design was included. In this study, 891 applications for long-term fellowships in 2006 were included and 47% of the applicants were women. These were scored by 13 peer reviewers (38% were women). The intervention included eliminating references to gender from the applications, letters of recommendations, and interview reports that were sent to the committee members for evaluation. The proportion of successful applications led by women did not change with gender-blinding, although the number of successful applications that were led by men increased slightly.ConclusionsThere is limited research on interventions to mitigate gender bias in the peer review of grants. Only one study was identified and no difference in the proportion of women who were successful in receiving grant funding was observed. Our results suggest that interventions to prevent gender bias should be adapted and tested in the context of grant peer review to determine if they will have an impact.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gender gaps plague careers in academic medicine as seen in differential rates in advancement, 1–5 compensation, 3,6 and productivity 7,8 between women and men faculty. The work environment can be particularly complex for women faculty who struggle to balance professional and personal-life demands 9–11 and who are members of disenfranchised groups, such as racial-ethnic minorities 12 ; foreign-born individuals; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) 13,14 people; and/or persons with disabilities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Variability in Women Faculty’s Preferences Regarding Mentor Similarity: A Multi-Institution Study in Academic Medicine

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To investigate which mentor similarity characteristics women faculty in academic medicine rate most important and to determine whether the importance of similarity differs among women faculty based on current and prior mentoring, demographic and personal factors, and career factors. Method Cross-sectional survey data from 3,100 women faculty at 13 purposively sampled U.S. medical schools were collected in 2012. The preferences of participants regarding the importance of mentor similarity in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, personal and career interests, and department and institution were studied. Analysis entailed chi square tests and multivariable ordered logistic models. Results Overall, respondents ranked having a mentor in the same department and institution as most important. Same department and institution were less important for those without a current mentor and for senior faculty, and were more important for Asian faculty. Same career and personal interests were less important for older faculty and more important for those with a doctorate only. Same gender was more important for Black faculty, faculty at the rank of instructor, and those without current mentoring. Overall, same race/ethnicity was rated least important; however, it was more important for racial/ethnic minorities, foreign-born faculty, and those who had never had a mentor. Conclusions Mentor preferences, as indicated by level of importance assigned to types of mentor similarity, varied among women faculty. To advance effective mentoring, characterized by high degree of mentor-mentee fit, the authors provide recommendations on matching strategies to be used in academic medicine when considering the diverse mentor preferences of women faculty.

show abstract

“…11,17–20 However, women exhibited different productivity curves than men with less productivity early but equal or superior productivity later in their careers. 1,17,18,21,22 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Differences in Scholarly Productivity Within Academic Gynecologic Oncology Departments

Hill

Blake

Emerson

et al. 2015

Obstetrics &Amp; Gynecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE To estimate whether there is a gender difference in scholarly productivity among academic gynecologic oncologists. METHODS In this cross-sectional study, the academic rank and gender of gynecologic oncology faculty in the United States were determined from online residency and fellowship directories and departmental web sites. Each individual’s h-index and years of publication were determined from Scopus (a citation database of peer-reviewed literature). The h-index is a quantification of an author’s scholarly productivity that combines the number of publications with the number of times the publications have been cited. We generated descriptive statistics and compared rank, gender, and productivity scores. RESULTS Five hundred seven academic faculty within 137 U.S. teaching programs were identified. Of these, 215 (42%) were female and 292 (58%) were male. Men had significantly higher median h-indices than women, 16 compared with 8, respectively (P<.001). Women were more likely to be of junior academic rank with 63% of assistant professors being female compared with 20% of full professors. When stratifying h-indices by gender and academic rank, men had significantly higher h-indices at the assistant professor level (7 compared with 5, P<.001); however, this difference disappeared at the higher ranks. Stratifying by the years of active publication, there was no significant difference between genders. CONCLUSION Female gynecologic oncologists at the assistant professor level had lower scholarly productivity than men; however, at higher academic ranks, they equaled their male counterparts. Women were more junior in rank, had published for fewer years, and were underrepresented in leadership positions.

show abstract

Gender Differences in Successful National Institutes of Health Funding in Ophthalmology

Cited by 80 publications

References 68 publications

Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review

Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review

Variability in Women Faculty’s Preferences Regarding Mentor Similarity: A Multi-Institution Study in Academic Medicine

Gender Differences in Scholarly Productivity Within Academic Gynecologic Oncology Departments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About