Peer Review—The Newcomers' Perspective

Mainguy, Gaëll; Motamedi, Maryam; Mietchen, Daniel

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030326

Cited by 22 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When more than 25% of department members attended this workshop, there was an increase in self-reported activity to promote gender equity at 3 months [47]. Furthermore, in contrast to the uncontrolled before-after study included in our review, anonymous review of applicants without disclosing the investigator’s name or gender was found to be effective in other settings [48], suggesting that it might be useful to test this strategy using a more rigorous design, such as in symphony orchestras and the technology industry [49–51]. Finally, when preparing peer review reports, peer reviewers may wish to ensure that they spend equal time on positive and negative aspects of the grant [52] and that they are aware of potential unconscious bias on gender differences [44].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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 A search for grey (i.e., difficult to locate or unpublished) literature was conducted and experts in the field were consulted to identify additional potentially relevant articles.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: Discussionmentioning

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

“…Several reports based on reviewer surveys have shown that reviewers think that making themselves known to the author would discourage them from being critical or from reviewing altogether. 11,22,23 Despite blinding, reviewers can sometimes identify the author or at least the institution, 24 through the writing style, subject matter, opinions put forth, referenced articles or the practicalities of anonymising a submitted manuscript. The accuracy of guessed identities on blinded reviews in a variety of disciplines ranges between 25% and 42%.…”

Section: Blindingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The accuracy of guessed identities on blinded reviews in a variety of disciplines ranges between 25% and 42%. 24,25 Several authors have reported that blinding does not affect the quality of reviews, and that quality is more likely to be based on the word count than the blinding. [26][27][28] This has been attributed to the premise that those papers which would most benefit from blinding are the hardest to conceal as the authors would be well-known or reveal themselves through the references.…”

Section: Blindingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer review

Twaij

Oussedik

Hoffmeyer

2014

The Bone & Joint Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The maintenance of quality and integrity in clinical and basic science research depends upon peer review. This process has stood the test of time and has evolved to meet increasing work loads, and ways of detecting fraud in the scientific community. However, in the 21st century, the emphasis on evidence-based medicine and good science has placed pressure on the ways in which the peer review system is used by most journals. This paper reviews the peer review system and the problems it faces in the digital age, and proposes possible solutions.

show abstract

“…Two studies showed that editorial processes make articles more readable and improve the quality of reporting, but the findings may have limited generalizability to other journals. The authors concluded that editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain 6 .…”

Section: Effects Of Editorial Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%